Terry Schiavo and Federalism, or, Federalism is not a Prostitute
More on Mena

Schiavo and Federalism - Take 2

"T. More" of the CLS Federalist Society Blog is baffled that "people persist in such simplemindedness in analyzing these issues," as "there is no legitimate" federalism concern.  He continues:

Is the Federal Government trying here to upend any state law? No. It is simply granting to a lower court the jurisdiction to hear claims of federal right de novo. That is at best a minor federalism problem, if you think that an important part of federalism is allowing state courts to adjudicate claims of federal right. But allowing this review does not offend against that principle, particularly when one considers that this is limited to a single case. Again, that limitation may be foolish, but it is not an offense against federalism.

My response to Mr. More, and to others who see no federalism problem where Congress orders a federal court to re-open a state court's final judgment on a family law issue, is a question:  Do you contend that if, upon exercising de novo review, the CA11 upheld the state court's finding, that the members of Congress who supported the Schiavo legislation would not be offended at the outcome? Is your argument that Congress does not care about the substantive outcome of the Schiavo case, but only about the procedures used?

Assuming Congress cares about the substantive outcome, should we federalists be concerned that Congress is manipulating jurisdiction to reach a certain result. Granted, the Schiavo legislation was a clever way to (now it seems, attempt to) manipulate a result, but not so clever that we can't see what Congress is doing.