Originally posted by Davo:
Rosa Parks' arrest was a personal matter whose social and political meaning captivated the nation and therefore sparked one of the more significant social movements in human history. My point was to prove that personal matters can be made political with lasting effects. Not sure that will happen with the Schiavo case, I was just trying to make a point.



???

The Rosa Parks arrest was an obvious and blatant violation of black-letter constitutional law. Requiring blacks to move to the back of a public bus in deference to White people or to give up their seats to White people is not and can never be constitutional. This was the case of a public transit authority and a municipal government and police force violating the constitutional rights of a person on the basis of race.

Now tell me what federal or constitutional right of the Schiavo parents was violated or implicated here?

Before you answer, keep in mind that a conservative US Supreme Court has found on 3 separate ocassions that no such right has ever been articulated.

What would be a more fitting analogy is if Rosa Park's parents wanted her to move to the back of the bus and Rosa Park's husband disagreed. That is not a federal dispute and would never have ended up in the federal court system.