In the wake of Congress's extraordinary direct involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, Senators and Representatives continued the trend toward focusing on the cases of specific individuals by passing legislation declaring Michael Jackson not guilty of the child molestation charges for which he is currently being tried in a California court. Congressional spokesman Simon Zentner said, "This was a uniquely bipartisan action by a body of legislators who suddenly realized, 'Hey, we can do anything we want!' And clearly there was unanimous sentiment among Democrats and Republicans alike to avoid subjecting Americans to Michael Jackson for one more minute than is necessary or humane."
After the passage of what Congressional observers quickly dubbed "Jacko's Law," legislators embarked on a frenzy of introducing bills that applied to only a single individual. The bills included:
· "Skippy's Law," in which an Oklahoma man sought to have his son's Little League coach fined and imprisoned "for putting the poor little guy in right field once too often, thereby irreparably harming his self-esteem and likely driving him to premature usage of steroids";
· "Cujo's Law," in which a Georgia man sought to have his pit bull saved from death by lethal injection for attacking an elderly neighbor who allegedly provoked the dog "by moving too slowly";
· "My Idiot Brother-in-Law Floyd's Law," in which a South Dakota man tearfully appealed to legislators to excuse his wife's unemployed brother from paying $6,000 in parking tickets "or else she says I can forget about sex in perpetuity."
J.J. Johnson, professor of political science and fashion design at Kent State University, rejected the idea that such individualized action by Congress signaled an ominous trend. "Today's legislative consumer is totally turned off by mass-produced laws that apply to everybody," said Johnson. "The demand today is for a personalized experience that makes the discerning constituent say, 'This law was passed just for me!' So don't think of it as Congressional interference in private disputes – think of it as 'Designer Legislation.'"
Conservative political commentator Jack Teagarden admitted that the rash of bills could be considered inconsistent with the traditional conservative philosophy of noninterference, "but, hey, judges have been legislating for years – let's see how they like legislators getting into the judge biz for a change."
