Yep, I had to go twenty more before I cooled down enough to write this post. The source of the heat was hearing Ann Coulter on the radio, and then reading her column, Starved for Justice, regarding the Terri Schiavo case. The main thrust of her first few paragraphs seems to be that liberals are being hypocritical by not allowing conservatives to be hypocritical. She is advocating that someone in another branch of government should stand up and disregard the rulings of the courts when the moral case, such as now, is strong enough. Her examples are cases where Democratic executives used executive powers to circumvent court rulings, and, by golly, Republicans should be allowed to as well.
The problem with her argument is that the hot water that the courts are in, and deservedly so, is because they were applying their own moral standards to the cases before them and got creative with their powers. Hence we have "legislation from the bench", and it really sucks when the morality applied isn't your own.
Complicated issues such as this one force those who make a decision about it to be very forthright in the priorities of their beliefs. What is the most important principle that drives you? Life? Equality? Liberty? For me, it is the rule of law, because in my mind, nothing else is secure without it. Ann's position of life above all else (although I believe that justice might come above that given what I assume to be her pro-death penalty stance, correct me if I am wrong) is justifying the act of "jurisprudence from congress" where Congress is empowered to keep pushing the issue until it gets a decision it wants. Imagining a reversed situation, liberal Congress interceding with a ruling of a conservative court, makes me think that Ann's position does not survive the "other foot" test.
So, in summation, curse you, Congress, for breaking the separation of powers, Curse you, Judiciary, for setting that precedent.