I am not going to comment directly on the plight of poor Terry Schiavo - anything that can be said has been. What the situation has done, however, is cast a bright light on the role of judges in today's society. It was judges that ruled the feeding tube be removed, reinstated, removed again, reinstated again, and finally removed (albeit after a three week delay). If this is a clear matter of law, why so many capricious rulings? Clearly something more than just "law" is at work here. With that as a stepping off point, Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker has interesting article on judicial activism has reached its zenith:

After six decades of expansion, the tendency of judges to impose their preferences on society, rather than simply interpret the law as written, may have reached its apogee. Judicial activism, as this writing of law from the bench is known, faces a confluence of forces which promise relief for the principles of Constitutionalism, and for the American people they protect. The trend of judicial activism morphing into judicial tyranny faces a perfect storm.

I hope Dr. Lifson is right, but I don't see it yet. Here are the elements in the "perfect storm:"

The American public is paying attention.
High profile decisions in which judges nakedly impose their preferences have been accumulating at an accelerating pace. It is no longer an unusual occurrence for Americans to turn on their radios or TVs, or log onto the internet to discover that a judge somewhere has concluded that homosexual marriage is a Constitutional right ...

While there is a group of politically interested people watching, I think there are numerically fewer people watching than one would hope. It will take some big, sweeping ruling to really get people's attention. Without an outrageous ruling requiring excise taxes to pay slavery reparations, or the release of the terrorists at Guantanamo, most people continue skating along without much notice.

Abortion policy is an increasing, not a receding irritant.
Of course, the lodestone of judicial activist decisions remains Roe v. Wade, in which a wholly fictional “penumbra” of the Constitution was invented to justify judicial control over one of the most controversial, significant and emotion-filled matters in the sphere of public debate, abortion.

Again, I think abortion percolates very hot for the people involved in its debate - but while most people have an opinion, most are just not worked up enough to start impeaching judges.

Public awe of the judiciary is receding.
Judicial activism ultimately depends on public acceptance of the rightness of judges handing down their decrees from Olympian heights. To the extent that judges carefully cite principle and precedent, this awe is reinforced. But conversely, when judges cite ephemera like public opinion polls and current sociological research, they come to be seen as mere human beings with opinions. Like the rest of us.

Maybe so. But it is worth noting that most people, if not in awe of law enforcement, have a deep respect for the men and women with badges and guns. And it is they that carry out activist judicial decrees. Until something comes down the pike outrageous enough to cause a revolt against or amongst the law enforcement community, lack of respect for the judges won't mean much.

The Supreme Court is at a turning point.
[...]
Today’s Supreme Court inevitably faces substantial changes in its membership. While appointments to the Court have always been of public interest, today’s environment makes both the stakes and the visibility of the next few appointments greater than ever before. If President Bush is able to appoint two or three new justices to the Court, including a new Chief Justice, there is the possibility of the Court signaling a retreat from activism, and legitimizing a return to what has been called “originalism,” the modest belief that the writers of law and the framers of the Constitution should be merely interpreted according to the actual words they wrote, not redefined and redirected by inhabitants of the judiciary.

While I agree with the sentiment, there is a pretty big "if" in there: "If President Bush is able to appoint two or three new justices." President Bush can't get his circuit court judges through, and what we are seeing now in the Senate with respect to judicial nominations is tiddlywinks compared to the histeria that is going to surround a Supreme Court bid, let alone two or three.

The Republican Senate majority seems inclined to break filibusters of judicial nominees.
Fortified by electoral success in 2004, most specifically the defeat of Minority Leader Senator Tom Daschle, GOP Senators are openly threatening to change Senate rules (requiring only a majority vote), to forbid the application of filibusters to judicial nominees.

*Drumming my fingers on the desk impatiently, waiting for the Republicans to stop being simply "inclined" and actually do something.

The Democrats’ arguments will not prevail in the public arena.
Since the Constitution specifies that only a majority vote is required for confirmation, the Republicans have a very good case to make to the American people, should the Democrats stupidly follow-through on their threat to shut-down legislation in the Senate, in response to a rules change.

Weak Democrat arguments only fail to the extent the main stream media allows them to look weak. The hyperbolic rhetoric they get away with on a host of issues, from pollution to health care to social security will be similarly tolerated or ignored with judges.

I would love to see some of Dr. Lifson's speculation come to pass, but I think it will take another decade to reach the point Dr. Lifson sees us at right now.