These days Chirac may like to compare economic liberalism with the horrors of communism, but here’s what he was saying in 1984:

"Liberalism seems to be working... Faced with a state machine that has become crazy, faced with a state bureaucracy that is growing monstruously, faced with an already difficult situation that will become even bleaker in the coming years, what will the next political leader be able to do, after the next election? He won't have any other choice than liberalism. More to the point: liberalism won't be a choice, but a necessity."

Back then, of course, he was looking to win an election against the Socialist president Mitterand.

Times, quite clearly, have changed.

The reader in France who sent me that quote adds this:

“Let us not forget that Chirac in his youth was a communist, distributing l'Humanite, the French communist newspaper, on street corners. [He] is more of a "girouette" (wind vane) than Clinton ever was...”

You may have read--in the New York Times but also here--that Tom DeLay had suggested that God gave us the Schiavo case to bring our attention to what truly matters, and not to the scandal charges against him.

I've gotten a copy of the DeLay speech in question. (A partial version, which includes the excerpts below, is online.) It may be relevant that the person who introduced DeLay had said that liberals were engaged in a co-ordinated attack on him. At the start of this passage, which comes toward the end of the speech, he is talking about the Schiavo case.

"This is critically important. I know you know that. It is more than Terri
Schiavo. This is a critical issue for people in this position. And it is
also a critical issue to fight the fight for life, whether it be euthanasia
or abortion. And I tell you, ladies and gentleman, one thing that God has
brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to elevate the visibility of what's going on
in America. That Americans would be so barbaric as to pull a feeding tube
out of a person that is lucid and starve them to death for two weeks. I
mean, in America that's going to happen if we don't win this fight. And so
it's bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our
power to save Terri Schiavo and anyone else that is in this kind of
position.

"And let me just finish with this. This is exactly the issue that is going on
in America, of attacks against the conservative movement. Against me and
against many others. The point is the other side has figured out how to win
and defeat the conservative movement. And that is to go after people
personally, charge them with frivolous charges, link that up with all these
do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros and then get the national
media on their side.

"That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose
and one purpose only and that's to destroy the conservative movement. It's
to destroy conservative leaders, not just in elected office but leading, I
mean Ed Feulner today, at the Heritage Foundation, was under attack in the
National Journal. I mean this is a huge nationwide concerted effort to
destroy everything we believe in, and you need to look at this and what's
going on and participate in fighting back.

"You know one way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon
Johnson who passed a law that said you couldn't get into politics or your
gonna loose your tax exempt status because they were all opposed to him when
he was running for president. That law we're trying to repeal, it's very
difficult to do that, but the point is that when they can knock out a
leader, then no other leader will step forward for a while, because they
don't want to go through the same thing.

"If they go after and get a pastor, then other pastors shrink from what they
should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church and that's
what's going on in America. The world is too bad, I'm gonna go get inside
this building and I'm not gonna play in the world. That's not what Christ
asked us to do. And so -- they understand that. It is a political maneuver
and they are going to try to destroy the conservative movement and we have
to fight back.

"So, please, this afternoon, each and every one of you, if you know a
senator, give them a call [to get them to vote for the Schiavo bill] . . ."

Whatever else can be said of DeLay's comments, it seems clear to me that they cannot bear the construction put upon them by his critics.

Remember that conversation about techonology and Schiavo around here? I decided to write another column about it.

Update Grrr. Because of some weird editing oversight -- i.e. I failed to catch the edit before it went out -- my column doesn't mention that Beaconsfield was in fact Benjamin Disraeli. I was not intending to be so cryptic.

I listened to Michael Schiavo's lawyer on the radio complaining at the outrageous rhetoric from opponents of having her feeding tube removed. Starvation and dehydration, he explained, are part of the natural process of death. Thousands of patients dying from cancer and the like stop eating when the end comes he explained. It is natural to refuse sustenance when dying, he assured reporters more than a bit indignantly.

The only problem is that she hasn't refused food and water, she's been denied food and water. She isn't dying of something that causes her to taking food and fluids, she's dying because she's being denied such things.

If she must be put to death can we at least speak clearly that this is what's being done?

WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH DID IN TEXAS [K. J. Lopez]
I got into this a little last night, but here’s a little more background on something I suspect you might have heard yesterday and will continue to hear today. During the debate over Terri Schiavo’s life in Congress on Sunday, Democrats in the House of Representatives argued that President Bush is inconsistent in his support for Terri Schiavo because when he was governor of Texas he signed a bill that was recently used in a terrible case in Texas to deny lifesaving treatment to a baby against the child’s family’s wishes.
But according to a source familiar with what went down in Texas, the then-governor signed into law the best bill he could get at the time, improving an already bad situation. Here’s some background explained:
In August 1996 the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article describing procedures then in effect in Houston hospitals. Under these procedures, if a doctor wished to deny a patient lifesaving medical treatment and the patient or the patient's surrogate instead steadfastly expressed a desire for life, the doctor would submit the case to the hospital ethics committee. The patient or surrogate would be given 72 hours notice of the committee meeting would be allowed to plead for the patient's life at it. During that short 72 hour period, the patient or surrogate, while preparing to argue for life, could also try to find another health care provider willing to give the lifesaving treatment, food or fluids.
If the ethics committee decided for death, under these procedures there was no appeal. There was no provision that the food, fluids, or lifesaving treatment be provided after the decision while the patient or family tried to find another hospital willing to keep the patient alive.
So under these procedures, the hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.
In 1997 there was an advance directives bill going through the Texas legislature that would have given specific legal sanction to such involuntary denial of life-saving treatment. An effort in the Texas legislature to amend the bill to require treatment pending transfer to a health care provider willing to provide the life-saving treatment had been defeated. When that bill reached Governor George Bush’s desk, he vetoed it, and said he was vetoing it precisely because it authorized hospitals to deny lifesaving medical treatment, food, and fluids against the will of the patients.
But even without that bill, these procedures were still going on. So there was an effort in the next sitting of the legislature, in 1999, to pass protective legislation. Unfortunately, the votes just weren’t there to require lifesaving treatment, food, or fluids be provided by unwilling hospitals. So there were negotiations that resulted in a bill that gave partial protection. That 1999 bill:
first, formalized more protections for in-hospital review
second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.
Now this was not what patient advocates wanted and it wasn’t what Governor Bush wanted. However, it was an important advance over the existing situation of no legal requirement of treatment pending transfer, for any period of time. The votes were not there in the Texas legislature to accomplish a more protective bill. So Governor Bush signed it because it was an improvement over the existing law.

ST. PETERSBURG - More than 20 years ago, a jury took only about an hour to convict James Floyd of murdering an 86-year-old woman in her home. They took another hour to send him to death row.

The evidence seemed compelling. Police caught Floyd cashing the victim's stolen checks. A bloodied sock, a jailhouse snitch, tire tracks and some hairs also were presented at trial.

But on Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court tossed out Floyd's conviction and death sentence because prosecutors didn't share other important evidence with defense attorneys. The ruling called the new evidence "unsettling."

The death toll from communism is, roughly speaking, one hundred million people, the number of other victims is, quite literally, countless. Jacques Chirac, however, thinks that free market principles are “the new communism of our age”.

The London Times is not impressed. Chirac’s comments, it said, “will be a surprise to those who had the misfortune to spend time in the labour camps. In reality, what this sad saga and his ludicrous statement illustrate is that Chiracism is the new infantilism of our era. His crass protectionism is naked populism pure and simple. In a similar vein, as part of yet another political tack, he opted yesterday to embrace the cause of poverty in the Third World (as if those souls had not suffered enough) and this despite his unrelenting refusal to contemplate the wholesale overhaul of a Common Agricultural Policy that condemns millions of people there to abject misery.”

Indeed.

Quite why any of the EU’s Eastern European leaders should now want to be in the same room as Chirac now escapes me. He has insulted their history, and belittled the memory of their dead. What a disgrace.

I don't particularly want to continue yesterday's thread, but let me just respond to this fairly representative email from a conservative at the London School of Economics:

Dear Mr Goldberg,

Your write: "British conservatism, which does have a lot going for it, is much more rooted in temperment and tradition, and is eager to defend such institutions as the monarchy which, needless to say, is not an institution America's founders had much use for. "

I understand American objections to the monarchy, which are based on the despotism the institution symbolised prior to, and at the time of, the American revolution. But in the UK, and for British conservatives, the monarchy is as much an institution of liberty as one of tradition. In fact the latter necessarily informs the former as I think Burke might have argued.

I don't want to write a long defence of the monarchy, suffice it to say that two very smart conservatives--David Frum and Mark Steyn--are extremely supportive of the monarchy. And neither of them are curmudgeonly traditionalists but firm believers in liberty.

A final point: the monarchy is, to me at least, a proxy for the British constitution. British lefties are eager to amend England's unwritten constitution to fit the latest European fashions. Aside from the inherent benefits of a constitutional monarchy, of which there are plenty, by defending the monarchy British conservatives are protecting one of the bedrocks of the constitution, and therefore the principle that constitutions should not be easily amended.
God Save the Queen! And, incidentally, the House of Lords.

Me: Just to be clear, I take a back seat to nobody in my entirely irrational, almost hysterical in the grand American tradition, Anglophilia. I support the monarchy to the extent I think the Brits would be enormous idiots to get rid of it. I like British conservatism and find much to admire in it. My only point in this regard was that conservatives in different places want to conserve different things.

Rick Weiss reports in WaPo that the House leadership has promised Rep. Mike Castle (R., Del.) a vote on his bill to expand taxpayer funding of embryo-destructive research. Based on the story, it looks as though the leaders didn't even consult with pro-lifers first.

Bush has pledged to veto any funding expansion, but for the House to go on record for it would be demoralizing for pro-lifers and potentially politically costly for the president. (It would be likely to be his first veto.) Pro-lifers' strategy should be to keep the House from passing it, certainly as a stand-alone proposal. It is very likely that there is majority support for Castle's bill in the House, so that's going to be difficult--but not impossible. The thing to do now, it seems to me, is to attach popular pro-life amendments to the bill. A majority of the House--not including Castle and his co-sponsor Diana DeGette (D., Colo.)--has gone on record against all forms of human cloning. Put that on the bill, and see if Castle and company are still eager to pass it. Another amendment would be to set an age limit on the human embryos that can be used in research, public or private.

And pounding the House leadership a little wouldn't hurt, either.

As someone who got a lot of grief for arguing we should consider invading Africa in order to save it (see here and here ), I suppose I'll chime in too. Although I think Ramesh makes the most salient point. The right -- loosely defined here as the people the left dislike -- has been very interested in coming up with new ideas about how to save Africa. The left, it seems to me, has been mostly interested in the same old remedies -- debt relief, direct aid, increasing budgets for NGOs etc. I do think there are a lot of very sincere liberals and lefty types who work very hard and do great work in Africa. But if the issue is "new ideas" I don't think Zakaria's swipe holds much water. Poke around Tech Central Station if you want to find an endless series of innovative ideas about Third World development, particularly in Africa to see what I mean. Zakaria is more than smart enough to know better than to engage in this sort of strawmanism.

I respectfully believe the attorneys for Terri’s parents should go back to the federal district court and seek the reinsertion of her feeding tube--whether by a temporary restraining order (TRO) or the court’s power under the All Writs Act--on the narrow but epically important ground that due process in the United States requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a court may issue an order that results in the taking of life, a right that Terri has been denied.

What dog breed are you? Note: to play click on the link to the right of the screen.

Also note: I would prefer if I didn't actually hear from too many people telling me what breed they are.

From a friend of NRO:

The third paragraph of your l:38 posting should be hung up in offices everywhere. Did anyone ever hear of the FDR coalition? The one with KKK members and the civil rights movement; with Midwest farmers and Greenwich Village bohemians; with crypto-communists and southern grandees?

BROWN: Let me try and ask the question a little bit differently. No state in the country allows a non-terminally ill person to commit suicide. Every state in the country would intervene in that matter.

Ms. Schiavo clearly to me is not terminally ill in the way we think about terminal illness. So, regardless of her wishes -- and let's just accept for this moment that those in fact are her wishes -- regardless of those wishes, should -- is it appropriate for a non- terminal person to end their life or to have assistance in ending their life?

JOHNSON: Well, I think the key distinction is that we have an incapacitated person and someone else making the decision.

I would say that there are a few decisions that each of us can only make for ourselves. And one of those is to give up our lives. And here we have a substitute decision-maker claiming to have the right to end another person's life, again, based on disability, which is a stigmatized minority group. But one person says, I can end my wife's life because of her disability.

And I think, for that decision to be valid, there ought to be real solemn documents, like a properly executed health care proxy, that says, absolutely, after advice, this is what I want, because the truth is that many, many people say casually throughout their lives, I'd rather be dead than disabled. I've had people come up to me and say, I would rather be dead if I had to live like you.

But the reality is that most people adapt. Most people go on to lead good lives that they could never have imagined. And this case is a particularly tough one. But the law applies to all people. And I think it's just a dangerous idea to say that we're going to let a substitute decision-maker authorize the killing of another person based on fairly casual statements they made without any particular knowledge of what they were talking about.

I have noticed, by the way, both anecdotally in speaking to people and even in the Corner, that the more that people learn about the case, the more they begin to have sympathy for Michael Schiavo.

From a reader who has many sensible things, so when I am Czar I shall merely claim his left baby toe as payment for his impertinent questioning of the cashew.

Jonah:

Your usually unassailable logic has failed you on this one. While I do not dispute that cashews are the best nut to eat with scotch and whiskey in grown up civilized settings, it does not follow that cashews are the best nuts. You suppose that, on average, it is preferable to be grown up, and in a civilized setting. This is manifestly not true.

Clearly, someone who is playing beer pong is not being grown up. Further, while playing beer pong, it would be absurd to be downing cashews, rather than, say, honey roasted peanuts. And Yankee Stadium is also clearly not a civilized setting. While at Yankee Stadium, one eats peanuts from their shell. Finally, I would guess that, on average, most people would agree that it is far, far better to be playing beer pong or going to Yankee Stadium than to be doing anything grown up in a civilized setting, whatever you may think of the Yankees, or peanuts. Frankly, peanuts do not even get my vote for best nut – that goes to the amazingly versatile almond.

All this proves is that it is very hard to get people to agree on anything. However, it has been many years since I have seen folks in the Corner disagree so much on something so monumental as the Terry Schiavo case. I have noticed, by the way, both anecdotally in speaking to people and even in the Corner, that the more that people learn about the case, the more they begin to have sympathy for Michael Schiavo. Maybe this proves that Conservatives can also be swayed by sentiment. Anyway, I agree with WFB, in that we ought to say “Enough”. Time to let the topic go.

There was that recently beatified secular saint. What was her name again...? Oh Right: Di something.

Also, I do seem to recall that large numbers of young British men tend to get into a bit of a tizzy at soccer games.

The other day I got into a little spat with Sam Rosenfeld over his celebration of "outcome" based "instrumentalism" -- i.e. whatever works -- as the core of liberal governing philosophy. Well, Andrew Sullivan offers a good example of what I'm talking about. He's very upset with non SMTPs (i.e. National Review) for their stance on Schiavo (though it sounds like he and Derb see things eye-to-eye on this one. Heh). But when Gavin Newsom defied the courts and the legally expressed will-of-the-people and performed gay marriages, Andrew celebrated it. Indeed, it's almost impossible to think of a time when Andrew objected to a procedural shortcut to gay marriage. This is what I mean by instrumentalism and why I dislike it so. Demanding that others play by the rules when you refuse to abide by them yourself is a very frustrating form of argumentation. It's particularly frustrating in this case when you ask, "Would he react the same way if this was a case of Congress intervening to legalize gay marriage?"

I think the Florida court ruled incorrectly -- it's hard to know for sure -- but I still think the intervention was probably a mistake. But Andrew's complaint that the right is run by a "crew of zealots and charlatans" who will do anything because "God is on their side" is classic rhetorical excess. If these hucksters and crusaders recognize no limits on their power why did they choose the fairly modest option of having a federal judge review the case? Why are they abiding by the federal judiciary's decision? All they did was offer Schiavo a modicum of the federal protections routinely offered to serial killers. Andrew understands pro-life theology and arguments far better than I do, which is why I am at such a loss to understand why he can't muster even the tiniest benefit of the doubt that some of the folks trying to save Schiavo's life are neither zealots nor charlatans.

Woops: I called Sam Rosenfeld "Josh" in the original post. It's been fixed. I think it's because I used to know a Josh Rosenfeld. My apologies.

I think this reader's got it pretty much exactly right. Conservatives argue all of the time about first principles. As a few serious liberals have recently noted , liberals spend most of their time arguing about strategy and "framing" while conservatives often have knock-down drag-outs about first principles and philosophy. The liberals (and some conservatives) look at these arguments as a sign of internal tensions when they're really signs of internal health. Anyway, from a reader:

Jonah,

Your remarks on the conservative crack-up were right on (Andrew Sullivan's banging the drum now, too, I see). The thing that kills me about such perennial reports is that they're usually sparked by a phenomenon that the left doesn't quite seem to recognize -- honest disagreements between people arguing in good faith.

While internal debate and disagreement can, of course, be a bad thing, it's more usually a sign of good health. It's when such debate/disagreement stops when you should worry (e.g. today's liberals). I am an atheist, libertarian philosophy professor who disagrees with many of the conclusions of cultural conservatives -- but I appreciate the fact that conservatives still feel the need to support their conclusions with reasons and the fact that a good opposing argument generally receives a respectful hearing (Exhibit A: The Corner posts on Terry Schiavo over the past week or so).

The same just cannot be said for the left today (Exhibit B: Larry Summers). Disagree with them and you're a heretic.

Keep up the good work and don't print my name (I'm trying to get a job
in academia).

4. There is a genuine dispute as to Ms. Schiavo's awareness and consciousness. But if we assume that those who would authorize her death are correct, Ms. Schiavo is completely unaware of her situation and therefore incapable of suffering physically or emotionally. Her death thus can't be justified for relieving her suffering.

5. There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can't justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.

From a reader:

Jonah, I think we need to bear in mind that what is deemed "hysteria" by the cool natured British would more likely be referred to as "a little riled up" in our American parlance. We are a fighting nation. Our forebearers struggled tremendously to overcome great odds and create this magnificent nation, and that fighting spirit is still alive and well in a goodly portion of our society. It's isn't hyteria to be passionate about something you believe in. I consider it a point of honor. I also believe it is the reason we have the greatest military in the world (my husband included!). The British are far too quick to resign themselves to whatever fate appears to be their lot. I find this sort of fatalism irksome in the extreme.

From a reader:

Remember Britain’s Daily Mirror headline following the Bush victory: “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?”

http://www.plasticbag.org/images/extra/dailymirror.jpg

Or consider any of the anti-War screeds originating in Britain. As bad as the American MSM press is at times, its major organs never reach anywhere near the level of hysteria that is common in Britain.

What Derbyshire and other current and former Brits want to believe sounds suspiciously like the tired old “nuance” cant we hear routinely from the left. Only to Derbyshire & Co. it’s not conservatives in general but Americans who see only “Manichean certainties” and are incapable of recognizing any shades of gray.

Must be pleasant to know you’re among the Select Few with True Vision.

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) -- A state judge has ruled Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida's social services agency don't have legal ground to take custody of Terri Schiavo.

Another view, from a reader:

How about this: British conservative no longer have the slightest idea of what they are trying to conserve, mainly because they have so little to choose from and still can't decide. Privatizing a coal mine in a milieu of entrenched Fabian socialism and a widespread conversion to what is essentially cultural Marxism doesn't quite do the trick.

And they've been baffled by Tony Blair. What more needs to be known?

And like the rest of Europe they'd love to drag the U.S. down into death with them.

In a decent, civilized, society this man would be disemboweled on national television for such thought crimes:

You rube. You hick. You maroon! Let me let you in on a little secret. You stating unequivocally that cashews are the best nut to accompany adult beverages is a little like the college freshman pontificating to his Budweiser drinking high school friends that Corona is what knowledgeable people drink (not realizing that Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout is the finest beer available in the States).

Sure, cashews are better than peanuts and almonds, but did you ever hear of Filbert nuts? Or maybe you know them by the alias Hazel nuts. As President of the Foundation for Increased Filbert Awareness ("FIFA"), I can assure you that Filberts are far, far superior to cashews. FIFA has conducted numerous scientific alcohol/food consumption tests which have proved conclusively that Filberts are the greatest accompaniment to adult beverages out there.

Live. Eat. Drink. Learn.

Just for the record, I've found British lefties to be just as capable as American lefties of performing pirouettes of hysterical jackassery. British animal rights activists, for example, are far more batty on the whole than American ones.

I do think, however, that Derb is on to something about British conservatives. But I think this has something to do with what British conservatives want to conserve versus what Americans wish to conserve. As Hayek and Sam Huntington have both argued, American conservatives are among the only conservatives in the world who wish to conserve fundamentally liberal, even radical, notions and institutions. When Hayek wrote his essay "Why I am not a Conservative" he was referring mostly to continental conservatives, but also to some British conservatives. In America, however, conservatives were still defenders of liberty because we seek to conserve and defend our constitution, the principles in the Declaration, property rights, liberty, etc.

British conservatism, which does have a lot going for it, is much more rooted in temperment and tradition, and is eager to defend such institutions as the monarchy which, needless to say, is not an institution America's founders had much use for.

Glenn Reynolds tackles this perennial lament and links to others as well. The smart bet must be, "no" if for no other reason than people have been lamenting or celebrating the "conservative crack-up" for decades and so far reports of conservatism's demise have been accompanied with a boom in conservatism's prospects.

This is an old and rich topic, but I think one part of the problem with "conservatism's over" school is that people confuse intellectual conservatism for popular conservatism generally. They are overlapping and mutually dependent movements, to be sure, but less so than most of the disgruntled intellectual types think. If the popular political movement does something at odds with the intellectual precepts of the eggheads, someone invariably yells "aha! the movement cannot sustain such internal contradictions!"

The problem is that all serious and large political and ideological movements contain internal contradictions. Internal contradictions come with growth. Perfect internal consistency comes with contraction and insularity. Small cults are internally consistent on every point. Large movements must deal with coalitions of competing interests.

This doesn't mean such contradictions don't create problems and challenges, but if you're looking for a major coalition to fall apart, you should look less for intellectual contradictions and more for conflicts of interests between major segments of the coalition. The intellectual conflicts are interesting to intellectuals -- that's why we call them "intellectuals" -- but they don't always reflect concrete antagonisms within the movement. Frank Meyer's fusionism -- the marriage between traditional or social conservatism and anti-state or libertarian conservatism -- never really worked on paper very well. But despite this internal contradiction -- capitalism versus stability -- the conservative movement prospered because it believed such a marriage would be useful ideal even if it couldn't be attained in practice.

Those who want to find in the Schiavo case proof of a movement-splitting schism need to demonstrate that a major constituent of the conservative movement -- free marketers, for example -- can no longer abide by fighting side-by-side with pro-lifers or social-conservatives. I just don't see that there's much evidence of this, which is one of the reasons I think the political consequences of the Schiavo case will be minimal.

THE CHIPS ARE DOWN. We have had a surfeit of due process. It is now well past time to consider the facts which process has willfully ignored. There is no reason, medical, moral, or legal, to refrain from an attempt to provide Terri Schiavo with orally administered liquids....

Let me get this straight: Iain Murray thinks that Leon Kass should be canned over some trivial offense, and it's the people who say he shouldn't be canned who are the hysterics?

It may very well be that Murray's general point is correct: that there is an element to the American national character that is absent from the British, and that this element is what an opponent of it would describe as a "weird hysterical strain." It may be that this difference in national character has something to do with the popular vitality of conservatism in America, and its pathetic weakness in Britain.

From a reader:

Jonah--

The legume-o-philes will have to give this one up. Despite their superficial resemblance to the vile peanut, cashews are not legumes. They belong in the family Anacardiaceae, along with pistachios, mangos, sumac, and poison ivy. By any reasonable view, of course, you're right: "nut," like "bug," is a term of function, not biology. But those who want to insist on foolish pedantry can at least be accurate about it.

From Armand in Paris:

One reason to have no doubt Soros is guilty indeed : when it comes to insider trading, we in France REALLY know what we're talking about.

But I don't want to indulge your favorite vice

DeLay, Sensenbrenner Statement on Supreme Court Ruling

WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision today:

"Like millions of other Americans, we received word of the Supreme Court's decision not to grant relief to Terri Schiavo with profound sadness and disappointment. The House and Senate met in extraordinary circumstances to ensure that Terri Schiavo received a federal court hearing to determine whether her federal or constitutional rights had been violated.

"Sadly, Mrs. Schiavo will not receive a new and full review of her case as the legislation required. I strongly believe that the court erred in reaching its conclusion and that once again they have chosen to ignore the clear intent of Congress. While federal remedies have been exhausted, I urge Governor Bush and the Florida legislature to continue examining all options to save Terri's life."

Dear Kathryn,

I didn't at all mind that you kept up the commentary when there was hope (and I appreciate that you made the Corner pretty much the best place to go to follow the situation with Terri) but things being what they are now, I wish most of you would just shut up for a while. Really. Said with all due respect and etc. etc.

Cashews are the best nut to eat with scotch, whiskey and other grown-up cocktails in civilized settings, hence they are the best of all nuts. On this there can be no debate.

Update I knew the legume-o-philes would pile on to note that cashews are not strictly nuts . I suppose I could have anticipated the email and said they are the best legumes/nuts, but I chose not to for the same reason I call spiders bugs even though they aren't.

"Terri Schiavo has had no food or water since Friday, which has led her parents and their supporters to complain that she could be experiencing a painful death. But neurologists on Wednesday said that based on court findings of her condition, her body gradually will shut down in a painless process that will lead to death."

Oh, on that I agree with Kathryn and Derb entirely. I think the longterm challenges and problems represented by the Schiavo case are enormous and hardly unique to her.

Longtime readers know this is an issue I'm really interested in, if not particularly expert on. I think the big changes in politics are often -- but not always -- driven far more by technology than by ideas. As Chesterton said, "progress is the mother of problems" -- or something like that. This is a point I've tried to address many times. I think first here and most recently here.

There's a significant cohort of folks out here in flyover country for whom this is a watershed moment. Just as the Elian Gonzalez case harmed Gore among Cuban- Americans in Florida 2000, the Terri Schiavo case has energized those people enraged by courts and politicians perceived as taking either a passive or adverse position on preserving Terri's life.

Yes, most people will return to their daily lives, but highly motivated subsets of the electorate often make the difference in elections l--and in this case the passion is overwhelmingly on the side that views the courts as the problem, not the solution.

Kathryn - Just to be clear I wasn't necessarily saying it's good news that this will change little of the political landscape but that I simply think it is so.

Though I should add I think the pro-life movement is now much more committed, publicly, to "life" issues across the board and not just abortion. Obviously this was largely the case before, but not so much in the public's eye. How that affects the internal dynamics of the right and how the right is perceived politically in the long run I don't know. But as for the electoral issues, I think this is largely a flash in the pan -- at the national level.

ABC first reported the memo as a bombshell that disclosed Republican strategy. Now it says that the memo "discussed a republican bill" and was "distributed to [some] repulbican [sic] senators." Whatever ABC may think of the "politics of the Shivo [sic] case," the network admits that it knows nothing about who authored and distributed the memo.

Suddenly it occurs to me that the Republican fight against the courts on Terri Schiavo has been, among many other things, a perfect set-up for the Republicans' next major congressional initiative: packing the courts with President Bush's conservative judicial nominees. Just take a look at how George Bush reacted this afternoon, after a federal appeals court refused to re-insert Schiavo's feeding tube:

"I believe that in a case such as this, the legislative branch, the executive branch, ought to err on the side of life, which we have," the president said. "Now we'll watch the courts make their decisions."

Combine that with the fact that Mark Levin's Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destorying America is right now on the best-seller lists, and you have a recipe for a mobilizing a hurt and highly motivated constituency in defense of the president's coming effort to transform the courts so that they more closely hew to the perspective in the White House and Congress.

…How medicine and society choose to think about Terri Schiavo will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious doubts exist as to whether a cognitive impaired person is or is not consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved, it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life…

…Terri Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous neurological diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and indicative of cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful neurological consideration, would not be expected in a persistent vegetative state.

Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on Terri’s behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water….

There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3, 2002 examination by Dr. Hannesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a comfortable position, he says to her parents, “So we are going to have to roll her over….” Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying sound, “Ugh, ha, ha, ha,” presses her eyebrows together, and sadly grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no on is touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr’s comment and signals her anticipation of pain. This response suggests some degree of language processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be explained by simple reflex withdrawal.

A federal appeals court in Atlanta today turned down a request by Terri Schiavo's parents for an emergency review of a decision issued before dawn in which a divided three-judge panel of the court refused to order Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube to be reinserted.

The court did not immediately offer an explanation for its 10-2 decision, and the parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, had earlier said they would take the matter to the Supreme Court.

ATLANTA (AP) -- For the second time in less than a day, a federal appeals court Wednesday rejected a bid by Terri Schiavo's parents to have her feeding tube re-inserted. Florida lawmakers, meanwhile, debated another last-ditch effort to prolong her life.

In a 10-2 decision, the Atlanta-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused Bob and Mary Schindler's request for an emergency rehearing by the full court. A three-judge panel from the same court ruled against the family earlier Wednesday.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Reader WM has persuaded me to wade back in.

Derbyshire's linguistic point does not bear scrutiny. To deny that what he wants is to have Terri Schiavo killed is precisely to "fool around with language." Whether he considers his state of mind to be typical of those who say they want to kill someone is entirely beside the point. Derbyshire thinks it best that Mrs. Schiavo physical life end, and we have a word for that in English. There are arguments for killing Mrs. Schiavo--with which I, obviously, disagree--but those who advocate it should not require the rest of us to share their squeamishness.

Which brings us to another point. If we are to assume that Mrs. Schiavo is no longer alive, that she no longer feels anything, and that to end her physical life is not to commit any offense, then why is it "compassionate" to end her life? She doesn't, on this assumption, feel any anguish at her life's continuation. It is true that some people are made unhappy by it--the only obvious member of this category is her husband--but more people seem to be unhappy about her death. If, on the other hand, we are to assume that she does feel something, then all we have on the other side of the ledger is Derbyshire's implausible arguendo claim that she probably wants to die. And we don't generally think it compassionate to grant that wish to anyone who happens to have it.

As for the law: Derbyshire would have us give great weight to the vote of Florida's legislature, accepted by Florida's governor, to deny food and water in some cases. Andy McCarthy has pointed out the illogic of Derbyshire's legal argument. (Whether that will have any effect on someone who has repudiated both logic and rhetoric is another matter.) But in any case, why should we heed that law, and ignore the law, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, to save Mrs. Schiavo's life? Derbyshire is trying to have it both ways here, as elsewhere.

Eleanor Smith of Decatur, Georgia, sat on Tuesday in a motorized wheelchair in front of the hospice, baking in the sun, with a sign on her lap reading, "This agnostic liberal says 'Feed Terri."' ... Smith, 65, had polio as a child and described herself as a lesbian and a liberal ... "At this point I would rather have a right-wing Christian decide my fate than an ACLU member," Smith said.

I have seen a number of news broadcasters and commentators suggest that the moral of the story is that everyone should have an advance directive. But this is only part of the story. The real moral of the story is that courts—both federal and state—are not particularly good venues for deciding these kind of contentious moral issues. Contrary to all the screaming about the influence of politics on this matter, it is precisely the political branches that should be weighing in, and passing laws to prevent future Schiavos. (Indeed, Krauthammer has suggested that they weigh in to specifically save Schiavo.) Anyone who doubts the respective capacity of the branches to resolve disputed moral questions need only recall that the representational function of government which gave us the Declaration of Independence (" . . . all men are created equal . . .), and the judicial branch which has given us such glowing statements as Dred Scott and Plessy.

People should have advance directives, but they should do a good many things that people don’t do. We need to have general norms in place for when people become afflicted with these kinds of conditions without directives, and if those norms do not comply with public sentiments of right (which seems to be the issue with Schiavo), it should be the political branches, not the courts, which alter those norms.

The National Review fundraiser [in NYC] was a pleasure to attend. I enjoyed speaking with NR writers and editors, and I also enjoyed meeting fellow NR readers. Best of all, it was for a superb cause.—Josh Abramowitz

At 3 p.m. today, in solidarity with Terri Schiavo, I and a group of Harvard students (who have signed with me below) began a hunger strike that will last until Terri’s feeding tube is reinserted or until the hour she dies by sanction of the U.S. courts at the behest of her husband Michael Schiavo and his lawyers. So far we have been joined by a student from Weston Jesuit School of Theology and we welcome others to join with us as well. We have been inspired in this effort by the example of Terri Schiavo's sister, Suzanne Vitadamo, and of a number of other concerned individuals mentioned in the news.

We are eating no food but are consuming basic liquids (something Terri herself is not permitted as she is dying on her hospital bed). Any suffering we experience will be offered in a spirit of solidarity to Terri and to her grieving family and friends who, cruelly, are being kept even from comforting her during her last hours by the harsh hand of the law.

We hope that Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, and those medical professionals and law enforcement officials presently responsible for her life will come to acknowledge that Terri has as much dignity and value as every other human person and that she should be protected, cared for, and loved despite her unfortunate condition -- not left to die at their hands.

If you have any questions or wish to join with our effort, please contact me; my information is below.

Signed,

Bronwen Catherine McShea
Harvard Divinity School MTS '05
bronwenmcshea@yahoo.com
Michael F. Lorelli
Harvard Law School JD '05

Kristin H. Williams
Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences G2

Ryan Hecker
Harvard Law School JD '05

James E. Maschoff
Harvard Law School JD '06

Luisa Lara Harvard College BA '07

Christopher Collins, S.J.
Weston Jesuit School of Theology (student)

It is possible that the uncompassionate thing to do is the right thing to do, right? Or is misguided compassion in the short run always self-defeating?

I may be misreading Ramesh's post, but he seems to be suggesting that the truly compassionate thing to do is always consistent with reason. I just don't know that that's the case.

I can imagine an argument -- I'm too lazy and busy to make fully here -- which might go something like this: the compassionate thing to do for Schiavo is to put her to death (I still reject this starving-is-better stuff). But because of slippery-slopes or bad precedents or the need for bright lines the compassionate thing to do for millions of un-named individuals, some yet to be born, is that Ms. Schiavo must endure her current predicament. I could see it the other way around as well. That the compassionate thing to do is to let her live, even if that will have deleterious consequences down the road. People of good will disagree about what the compassionate policy regarding Schiavo is. But perhaps the compassionate policy and the right policy aren't automatically the same thing? I don't know the answer to that.

Theresa spent two and a half months as an inpatient at Humana Northside Hospital, eventually emerging from her coma state, but not recovering consciousness. On 12 May 1990, following extensive testing, therapy and observation, she was discharged to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility. Forty-nine days later, she wastransferred again to Bayfront Hospital for additional, aggressive rehabilitation efforts. In September of 1990, she was brought home, but following only three weeks, she wasreturned to the College Park facility because the “family was overwhelmed by Terry’scare needs.”…

The clinical records within the massive case file indicate that Theresa was not responsiveto neurological and swallowing tests. She received regular and intense physical,occupational and speech therapies…

In late Autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing, formal diagnoses ofpersistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa toCalifornia, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months and returned to Florida with her in January of 1991. Theresa was transferred to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon, where she received 24 hour skilled care, physical, occupational, speech and recreational therapies.

Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no functional abilities, only reflexive, rather than cognitive movements, random eye opening, no communication system and little change cognitively or functionally. On 19 July 1991 Theresa was transferred to the Sable Palms skilled care facility. Periodic neurological exams, regular and aggressive physical, occupational and speech therapy continued through 1994.

After the malpractice case judgment, evidence of disaffection between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo openly emerged for the first time. The Schindlers petitioned the courtto remove Michael as Guardian. They made allegations that he was not caring for Theresa, and that his behavior was disruptive to Theresa’s treatment and condition.

Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian. Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as “a nursing home administrator’s nightmare”. It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa’s collapse, she has never had a bedsore.

By 1994, Michael’s attitude and perspective about Theresa’s condition changed. During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement.

In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa’s treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a “do not resuscitate” order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility.

Michael’s decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresa’s doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresa’s recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

Take note of the way the quotes are constructed. The first, "One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," is a completely legitimate statement on how a culture that denies some lives are worth anything, or worth living, i.e. one that endorses abortion on demand and euthenasia, gradually gets to the point where taking action to kill a living person by slow dehydration and starvation in this case, becomes "reasonable".

The second quote "This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," is not directly referenced to the first (at least as you quote it). It may have been a completely different issue. The last section merely makes an assertion that he is accusing the media and others of trying to destroy the conservative movement, which I can believe, and he may have said, but note that to do this the Times has to do some interesting filling in between quotes. Given it's the Times, I'll need to hear the whole tape before I believe they are reporting it accurately.

I also have a nice collection of papers in astrophysics from a colloquium supported in part by the Pontifical Acacdemy of Sciences.

This isn't a post trying to settle the question of whether authentic federalist principles should have barred Congress from doing what it has done (and what some congressmen have tried to do)--or even venturing an opinion on the matter. I just wanted to note that conservatives should be wary of the argument that it doesn't matter if there's a violation of federalist principles because the cause of life is more important. Assuming that the congressmen did violate federalist principles, then the fact that they were acting in a good cause may reasonably affect how harshly we judge them. But we can't just say that "the Constitution is not an assisted-suicide pact" and move on.

If the Constitution really does bar congressmen from acting here, it is not commanding them to do anything unjust--just to refrain from acting against that injustice. And if it is not commanding them to do anything unjust, they have a moral duty to obey it even if their obedience causes terrible consequences, just as we have a moral obligation not to kill or torture people even where our not doing so causes terrible consequences.

Longtime Corner readers may recall that Prof. Adler and I have debated the constitutionality of a federal ban on partial-birth abortion--he thinks the ban can't be constitutionally justified, I think it can. If I believed as he did, however, I would certainly stop advocating for it (at least until the Constitution were amended).

Jim Robbins "Winning the War on Terrorism."

University of Virginia
Tuesday, March 22nd
7:30-8:30pm
Commonwealth Room, Newcomb Hall

Hey look, I am entirely sympathetic to the charge that the media gets nudged by liberal interest groups and the like, including groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I'm also open to the suggestion that Tom Delay is being railroaded by his enemies, though I'm not convinced either way (the Post's assault has too many holes). But can we agree that Tom Delay is not a stand-in for Terri Schiavo? This is from today's New York Times:

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," Mr. DeLay said.

Mr. DeLay complained that "the other side" had figured out how "to defeat the conservative movement," by waging personal attacks, linking with liberal organizations and persuading the national news media to report the story. He charged that "the whole syndicate" was "a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in."

Me: Again, as I've been reading Byron York's excellent new book I think it's entirely plausible that there's a whole "syndicate" determined to undermine conservatism, Republicans et al.

But I think it's at minimum tacky and ill-conceived to suggest that God put Terri Schiavo into her condition to help highlight the unfairness of attacks against Tom Delay or conservatism in general. Nor is it against God's plan to criticize Tom Delay. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that Schiavo's plight is symbolic of any number of things, but if Delay's ethics problems are real he shouldn't hide behind Schiavo and if they're fictitious, he shouldn't hide behind Schiavo.

If that's the most eloquent email you've received on this subject, it might be better to leave the inbox unattended for a few days.

It is certainly true that some of those on the feed-Schiavo side of this debate have embraced accusations against Mr. Schiavo without evidence--which, you may note, NRO's editorial criticized them for. But it is also true that there are good reasons for questioning whether he ought to be making these decisions for Mrs. Schiavo--questions your correspondent skips over. It's not as though the pro-feeding side hasn't heard this "sanctity of marriage" argument over the last few days and responded to it. And he makes insinuations against the Schindler family with much less evidence than has been brought to bear against Mr. Schiavo. Finally, the use of the word "kill" and its cognates in this discussion is "beyond the pale" only for people who recoil from plain language. The disconnection of the tube will cause her death and was done with the intent to cause her death. The word "kill" nicely covers the situation.

As for your own post: I fail to see how Professor George has "blotted his copy book" when he has said something that you yourself concede is true. Professor George's mistake, on your account, was not to take account of an argument against the conclusion that his true statement leads him to. But the "argument" isn't much of an argument: the fact that many or most people believe X is hardly a proof that X is the correct position. Nor is the "absolutist" tag an argument. And the slippery slope you vaguely invoke would need to be spelled out further to have any force at all as an objection.

Sam Rosenfeld goes to admirable lengths to dismiss my complaints about liberal hypocrisy when it comes to championing states' rights. Not surprisingly, I'm unpersuaded. His case largely rests on the assertion that liberals haven't been as gung-ho for federal power as my alleged strawman suggests. Instead, liberals have been "instrumentalists." He writes:

Liberals have always taken a much more honestly instrumentalist approach to questions of federal-state balance. We’re guided by the prospect of specific policy outcomes in rendering our judgments on such matters; conservatives are quite obviously guided in the same damned manner to the same extent, only they still seek to hold fast to “federalism” and “states’ rights” as parts of some fundamental ideological credo.

Translation: liberals have an ends justify the means attitude towards policy "outcomes." If state courts get the job done, hooray for state courts. If liberals can't get what they want from state courts, let's see what the federal courts will do for us. If the federal courts are no good, maybe referenda, legislation, regulatory fiat, goat entrails, etc. will get the job done. This was the strategy of the progressives and it remains the strategy of liberals today. Put nicely, "instrumentalism" is another way of saying we'll run with the ball wherever the field is open. That's why liberalism has become basically a lawyer's and bureaucrat's business for the last 30 years -- their policy prescriptions don't sell at the ballot box. Affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage etc lose in elections and referenda so liberals spend their time opposing statewide ballot initatives and convincing unaccountable judges to do for them what they can't do democratically.

If the instrumentalist approach is concerned with policy outcomes, then the policy outcome liberals favor -- according to Rosenfeld -- must be that Schiavo be slowly starved to death. And if death is the policy outcome he favors, I'm still confused why he wouldn't argue in favor of Schiavo being executed quickly and painlessly rather than take the risk that the New York Times is wrong when it says starving to death over two weeks is no worse than a trip to the beach.

I do have serious reservations about Congress' intrusion here. But I'm also willing to accept that my preferred political system would allow for local jurisdictions to do things I consider to be outrageous and immoral without interference from the Federal government. Rosenfeld admits that his governing philosophy is not so restrained. Instrumentalism, by definition, is a philosophical approach to government which does not overly concern itself with the limits of governmental power.

But, oddly, that doesn't stop him from pounding the table about how conservatives have abandoned the rule of law and judicial autonomy thanks to the Republicans' "inability to recognize any limits on their actions." This seems like a pretty grandiose indictment in the wake of a congressional effort to give a federal judge oversight of a single case. If they don't recognize any limitations on their actions, why didn't they try something they don't have the legal authority to try? (As far as I know, no liberal constitutional scholar has claimed Congress doesn't have the authority to do what it did.) Indeed, if conservatives are so instrumentalist, why didn't they try an "outcome based" approach which resulted in something other than rolling the dice with a federal judge?

New York, N.Y., March 22, 2005 -- Mary Matalin, the celebrated political strategist, author and commentator, will head up a new publishing imprint, it was announced today by Carolyn K. Reidy, President of the Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group.

The imprint, as yet unnamed, plans to develop and publish from six to ten books per year beginning in 2006….

--Support for Personal Retirement Accounts has increased. According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans support allowing workers to invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market, while 41% oppose such an idea. The number of Americans who support PRAs has increased by a net of 6% since last December, when 53% supported the plan and 44% opposed it. This is the highest level of support for PRAs since the Post first asked the question in 2000.

--Those eligible for Personal Retirement Accounts see benefits from them. According to a recent Pew poll, among those eligible for Personal Retirement Accounts, 56% believe investment would bring higher benefits; just 12% predict lower benefits and 55% would invest if given choice.

--Once PRAs are explained, a majority of Americans support them. According to the Democracy Corps poll, 40% of Americans support PRAs before they are explained, while 51% oppose them. However, after a plan for voluntary personal retirement accounts is explained, support rises to 54%, while 45% remain opposed.

The state of Florida, through its judiciary, has ordered the termination of Terri Schiavo's life. This is an interest clearly protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Thus, before Florida can order such action, it must accord Schiavo with the full measure of process that is due to her. Unfortunately, a review of the record shows that such process was never provided.

The courts in Florida were charged, first and foremost, with discerning what T. Schiavo would have chosen under the present circumstances ("substituted judgment"). Florida law provides a complex system of procedural safeguards for this determination, including a "clear and convincing" evidence standard (the highest in all of civil law), and a presumption that the now-incapacitated patient would choose to live, in exercising her constitutional right to accept or refuse life-sustaining treatment. Moreover, Florida law requires that a guardian be appointed in circumstances such as these to represent the interests of the patient...

...The procedural irregularities that tainted the handling of Ms. Schiavo's case include...:

The court's failure to appoint a guardian ad litem (following 1998);
The court's usurpation of the guardian's role (in direct violation of Florida law);
The court's reliance upon insufficient evidence regarding T. Schiavo's wishes (namely, the recollection of her husband that T. Schiavo's had made ambiguous, casual remarks about "not wanting to be a burden" many years prior, in a wholly unrelated context);
The court's refusal to consider probative evidence of T. Schiavo's wishes (namely, witness testimony that Mr. Schiavo was lying and that he had never, in fact, discussed end-of-life care with T. Schiavo); and
On remand, the court's shifting of the burden to the Schindlers to demonstrate that T. Schiavo would have wanted treatment under the present circumstances (inverting the logic of the Florida laws).

These irregularities make it impossible to conclude that T. Schiavo's wishes under the present circumstances were proven by "clear and convincing" evidence, particularly in light of the presumption (under Florida law) that she would have chosen to receive life sustaining treatment. Any claim, therefore, that re-insertion of the tube is contrary to Terri's wishes (and thus an encroachment upon her right to refuse treatment) is groundless. We simply do not yet know what her wishes would have been.

The recently passed S.686 gives the Middle District of Florida jurisdiction to hear a suit or claim by or on behalf of T. Schiavo "for alleged violation of any right of T.M. Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the US relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life." It gives third parties the standing to bring such claims. And, most importantly for present purposes, it empowers the federal court to determine, DE NOVO, "any claim of a violation of any right of T. Schiavo within the scope of this Act, NOTWITHSTANDNG ANY PRIOR STATE COURT DETERMINATION AND REGARDLESS FO WHETHER SUCH A CLAIM HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN RAISED, CONSIDERED, OR DECIDED IN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS."

Thus, its seems highly improper for the federal court to determine on the basis of a two hour hearing that the Schindler family would not likely be successful on the merits in an entirely new trial, complete with extensive discovery, etc.

Whether you're offended or amused, this really is an impressive bit of work. A Christian parody of Sir Mix-a-lot's "Baby Got Back." Sample lyric: "Well bless me, bless me and teach me about John Wesley..."

Brett Stephens peels Nancy Soderberg's book like a grape (at the WSJ, so it's behind a forcefield). An excerpt:

Begin with the simplest errors of fact. The aggregate value of global trade was not $4 billion when President Clinton took office; it was $4 trillion, according to the OECD. The Palestinians have not had "several" prime ministers since 2003; they've had two. Richard Perle has never been a member of the Bush administration. The Iraqi National Museum was not significantly looted in April 2003; Britain's leftist Guardian newspaper put paid to that legend in 2003. Israelis did not support the dovish Geneva Accords by 53.3%; the actual figure was 31%, while a plurality of 38% opposed them. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 not 1989. Trivia, really, but when Ms. Soderberg snickers about how candidate Bush struggled through a foreign-policy pop quiz in 2000, one is compelled to snicker back.

Next are larger, but equally basic, errors of analysis. "It is now believed that [Abu Musab] Zarqawi operates independently, and even in competition with bin Laden." She must have missed Zarqawi's declaration of fealty to Osama bin Laden in October. (Bin Laden certainly noticed it: He recently ordered Zarqawi to widen the scope of his efforts beyond Iraq.) "While [Ahmed] Chalabi was popular in certain powerful circles in Washington, he had virtually no support in Iraq." Funny, then, that Mr. Chalabi did well enough in January's elections to be in serious contention for the premiership. "The war in Iraq drew the Bush administration's focus away from Afghanistan during the critical two years following the overthrow of the Taliban, making the job there infinitely harder." Infinitely? Ten million Afghan voters missed that nuance.

And then there is the Soderberg Whopper: "The hegemons' experiment has failed in Iraq," she writes. "Whether other benefits of the war cited by the administration will materialize, such as promoting democracy and reform in the Middle East and a resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, will take years to evaluate. Early signs indicate the war set back rather than promoted these goals." Early signs being...Palestinian elections? Iraqi elections? The Cedar Revolution? The "Kifaya" ("Enough") movement in Egypt? The end of the intifada? As the lady says, you can always hope that "this might not work."

It was truly my pleasure to have met, and had personal discussions with so many of the NR/NRO editors and contributors that I have read and enjoyed over my many years as a subscriber, and my fewer years as an online guest. It was a special pleasure to meet Mr. Buckley.

My only regret is that the time passed so quickly, and there were more NR/NRO folks I would have liked to have gotten to know. On that thought, I am clearing time in my schedule to attend the upcoming Atlanta event (if for no other reason than to meet Mr. Derbyshire!)...

Mr. Derbyshire---I am a physician, a board certified Internist, who cares for many patients in nursing homes. I am also a conservative, at least I think I am. I am greatly disappointed by the tone of most of the posts in The Corner regarding this case, and was relieved at least to read yours. Let's assume for a moment that Mr. Schiavo loves his wife dearly and that sometime when she was well and competent they had a discussion in which she told him she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means, or at least not indefinitely, by artificial means. She say's to him "promise me you won't do that to me". He says "I promise". This is a conversation many loving couples have and one I have had with my wife. Unfortunately, Mrs. Schiavo apparently never produced a document stating this clearly. This is the norm not the exception, particularly in younger people. Now, you are left with a man, if my assumption is correct, who spends a great deal of time with that promise ringing in his head. The thing she asked him to do, that she made him promise to do, and he can't do it. That man would be tormented.

Consider further that even when people do provide a living will it is almost impossible to take into account all the variables. If a man has a stroke or an intracranial hemorrhage and becomes incapacitated to the extent that immediately thereafter he cannot fend for himself, i.e. get water, drink water, get food, eat food. Is that it then, ballgame over, no tubes, no i.v. Of course not, some people take many weeks or months of intensive therapy to recover that capacity, and of course some men never do. The problem is it can be very difficult to predict this. So now you may have a man who is stuck forever on tubefeeding when all he might have reasonably wanted was to be given a "fair" shot at recovery. See how quickly we get into deep water. Almost nobody defines in their living wills how long they would like to be given to recover. Who would best know whether this man was given the chance, the fair shot he desired. His wife, likely, and probably no one else. You live with someone you get a feel for what they would want and what would be intolerable. Your colleagues in the Corner (many, not all) have demonized Mr. Schiavo I believe in a most unfair fashion. It is very likely that Mr. Schiavo is the only one that truly knows what his wife would have wanted. To call him a killer is in my opinion beyond the pale. At the very least he is allowing her to die, at best he is fighting like hell to fulfill his promise.

Let me say something else, and I admit up front that I don't know all the details of this case: in my experience poeple who have had a financial interest in the life or death of a loved one have almost always been interested in keeping that person alive. They may be living in a home which is in the patients name, they may have control of that person's bank accounts, his pension checks, his assets. If they have been given financial power of attorney, this is almost certainly so. I have seen this situation before, rarely thank God. A family member puts his completely demented octagenarian mother through a series of painful operations even though she is already completely non-communicative and dependent on tube feeds. You might say "why didn't the ethical physician object? The answer is he probably did, and was told: "If you let my mother die I will own you." Again, in my experience, anecdotal though it may be, this is much more common than the guy who just can't wait for daddy to die so he can inherit his money. After all, depending on the will, he may have to share it with siblings, the Humane Society, the church, and of course, depending on the size of the estate, the Federal government. Your colleagues have made some awful assumptions about Mr Schiavos motives, and as you ask "is there any proof?" It seems to me if he had just wanted to be rid of her, he could have easily gotten a civil divorce and been on his way. It seems to me at least that it is very possible, even likely, that he believes himself to be her champion, fighting for her wishes, fighting the courts and now fighting congress. There is a lot to be admired in this.

As a physician, from a practical standpoint, this whole affair is a nightmare. It calls into question the primacy of the husband and wife relationship and therefore terribly muddies the waters as to who has the right to make these difficult heart rending decisions. I always tell my patients, the best thing to do is consult with your family and try to reach a consensus. But obviously, this is not always possible. If there is a disagreement you pray for paperwork defining who has medical power of attorney. If there isn't, there has to be a pecking order. If the patient is married, it starts with the spouse, after that it gets very troublesome very quickly. Let me say for all physicians, we are not excited about having to testify in court everytime there are family members who disagree with the spouse, much less about having to wait for congress to pass a law each time this question comes up so that a higher court may decide. This is nonsense, as much as my conservative sensibilities loathe the overreaching of our courts, this is exactly where it belongs, not in congress. Let a local judge review the facts, the paperwork if any, the testimony and make a decision and be done with it. Most physicians want only some clear direction in these cases. It takes someone awfully well acquainted with Him to state that one choice or the other is the moral one. I can't do it and I think I have tried my best to know Him.

Finally, it seems to me that much has been written on your site about the primacy of marriage, how it must be protected, cherished, encouraged, valued, that we must fight to keep it from being disregarded, belittled, lumped into the evergrowing, soiled pile of disposable, unsacred relationships. The position that many of your colleagues have taken and I gather the editorial position of your publication can only hurt this. How can we convince our children that this will be the most important relationship they will ever have. They will ask why? What am I supposed to tell them? "It'll be great because you'll get to have sex and not feel guilty". That's a child's view -- and what the hell everyone is already doing that anyway. No: At least in part, I will say, it's because you will get to stand together with that person through thick and thin with God at your side. That you will tell that person things that you would never tell another soul. That you will know them better than you know yourself. That when the end comes, you will do right by her and she will do right by you. That you will ease each others passing through this insufferable imperfect world and meet perfectly in the next. It's an awfully big leap to tell Mr. Schiavo that he doesn't know his wife best. It's an impossible leap to to tell that to the rest of us.

Sincerely,

[Name], M.D.

Republicans have traditionally championed respect for the delicate balance the founders created. But in the Schiavo case, and in the battle to stop the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominations, President Bush and his Congressional allies have begun to enunciate a new principle: the rules of government are worth respecting only if they produce the result we want. It may be a formula for short-term political success, but it is no way to preserve and protect a great republic.

I'm sure y'all know the answer to this. I watched "Annie Hall" for the first time in a long time last night, and noticed the reference to National Review. Woody Allen finds a copy in Diane Keaton's apartment and asks her why she has it, to which she responds: "I like to get all points of view." I was just wondering what issue it was and what the cover story was. I couldn't make it out. It would have been 1975.

How I met my wife
by Jack Winter
Published 25 July 1994 in The New Yorker

It had been a rough day, so when I walked into the party I was very chalant, despite my efforts to appear gruntled and consolate.

I was furling my wieldy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way.

I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I'd have to make bones about it since I was travelling cognito. Beknownst to me, the hostess, whom I could see both hide and hair of, was very proper, so it would be skin off my nose if anything bad happened. And even though I had only swerving loyalty to her, my manners couldn't be peccable. Only toward and heard-of behavior would do.

Fortunately, the embarrassment that my maculate appearance might cause was evitable. There were two ways about it, but the chances that someone as flappable as I would be ept enough to become persona grata or a sung hero were slim. I was, after all, something to sneeze at, someone you could easily hold a candle to, someone who usually aroused bridled passion.

So I decided not to risk it. But then, all at once, for some apparent reason, she looked in my direction and smiled in a way that I could make heads and tails of.

I was plussed. It was concerting to see that she was communicado, and it nerved me that she was interested in a pareil like me, sight seen. Normally, I had a domitable spirit, but, being corrigible, I felt capacitated -- as if this were something I was great shakes at -- and forgot that I had succeeded in situations like this only a told number of times. So, after a terminable delay, I acted with mitigated gall and made my way through the ruly crowd with strong givings.

Nevertheless, since this was all new hat to me and I had no time to prepare a promptu speech, I was petuous. Wanting to make only called-for remarks, I started talking about the hors d'oeuvres, trying to abuse her of the notion that I was sipid, and perhaps even bunk a few myths about myself.

She responded well, and I was mayed that she considered me a savory character who was up to some good. She told me who she was. "What a perfect nomer," I said, advertently. The conversation become more and more choate, and we spoke at length to much avail. But I was defatigable, so I had to leave at a godly hour. I asked if she wanted to come with me. To my delight, she was committal. We left the party together and have been together ever since. I have given her my love, and she has requited it.

Would it be completely unfunny if Trek-loving Corner readers showed up and every time Jim made a good point liberals disliked the Cornerites chanted "tell them Jim! Tell them Jim!"

Alas, I don't always hear "that's a keeper" either. Here's one I got Friday:

What happened to you, man????

Are you doing coke or something?? Your column has
really sucked lately. I mean, your stuff was always
neocon yid bull s**t, but your writing was somewhat
enjoyable. Now, you just ineptly run on and on about
the stupidest stuff. Why don’t you retire? Go work for
PNAC or Likud or something? You’re a bore.

From one of Derb's e-fans:

Is being called "EMINENTLY SENSIBLE" by Derbyshire like being called a "Consensus Builder" by Harry Reid?

For those of you who know the Politics & Prose bookstore in Washington DC, the cover story about it in today's Wall Street Journal will no doubt strike many as highlarious. The store is run by -- what some might call -- snobby old reds. The owners of P&P let the employees boss them around. And the fifty employees were scandalized to discover that a prospective new owner might want to run the place... like a business. The buyer had to work in mufti as a staffer for a long time in order to grasp the psychological complexities of the staff (think Robert Redford in the first part of "Brubaker."). The hopeful buyer's plan almost succeeded until he dared kiss an employee on the cheek at her birthday party. For this effrontery, the staff finally rebelled and put the kibosh on the sale.

That moral imperative should be that medical care cannot be withheld from a person who is not brain dead and who is not at risk for dying from an untreatable disease in the near future. To do otherwise makes us recall Nazi Germany where retarded people and those with serious disabilities were "euthanized" (that is, killed). We hear around the country echoes of this view in the demands that doctors be allowed to participate, as they do in Oregon, in physician-assisted suicide, whereby doctors can end the life of patients who request death and have less than six months to live. This policy endorses the right of a person to end his or her life with medical help. It is justified by the alleged success of this policy in the Netherlands.

But it has not been a success in the Netherlands. In that country there have been well over 1,000 doctor-induced deaths among patients who had not requested death, and in a large fraction of those cases the patients were sufficiently competent to have made the request had they wished.

Keeping people alive is the goal of medicine. We can only modify that policy in the case of patients for whom death is imminent and where all competent family members believe that nothing can be gained by extending life for a few more days. This is clearly not the case with Terri Schiavo. Indeed, her death by starvation may take weeks. Meanwhile, her parents are pleading for her life....

George Will argues that the filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees should be allowed. Will shows that there is a very respectable conservative argument in favor of not changing the Senate rules to end the filibusters. Ultimately, however, I find his argument unpersuasive.

Will attacks from a conservative perspective a number of constitutional arguments in favor of changing the rules regarding the breaking of a filibuster. However, he doesn't address the primary argument that conservatives are making, namely that Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution empowers the Senate to determine the rules of its proceedings, and that this rulemaking power allows a simple majority to alter the Senate's standing rules at will. A scholarly discussion of this argument can be found here.

Turning the issue of prudence, Will argues that exempting judicial nominees from filibusters will enlarge presidential power. However, the president has always had the effective power to secure an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees when his party has controlled the Senate. Thus, the attempt to end the filibusters in question should be viewed as an effort to preserve, rather than enlarge, presidential power.

Will contends that the Republicans' remedy is to elect 60 Senators. This begs the question. Why should Republicans have to elect 60 Senators to do what a simple majority has always been able to do?

My view is that the option Republicans are considering is constitutional by virtue of Article I, Section 5. Whether the option is prudential depends on whether it is necessary to overcome major abuse. If the Democrats were filibustering manifestly unqualified nominees, or if they were following past precedent, or perhaps if they were filibustering only one or two ideologically egregious nominees, then their abuse (if any) might not be major. But since the Democrats are using the filibuster in an essentially unprecedented manner, and certainly to an unprecedented degree, to block nominees whose qualifications are not being questioned, it is natural and proper for the Republicans to contemplate, and if necessary take, counter-measures. The counter-measure being considered here is not only constitutional, it is one that the Democrats themselves have threatened to use in the past to curb what they perceived to be abusive filibusters.

In August 1996 the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article describing procedures then in effect in Houston hospitals. Under these procedures, if a doctor wished to deny a patient lifesaving medical treatment and the patient or the patient's surrogate instead steadfastly expressed a desire for life, the doctor would submit the case to the hospital ethics committee. The patient or surrogate would be given 72 hours notice of the committee meeting would be allowed to plead for the patient's life at it. During that short 72 hour period, the patient or surrogate, while preparing to argue for life, could also try to find another health care provider willing to give the lifesaving treatment, food or fluids.

If the ethics committee decided for death, under these procedures there was no appeal. There was no provision that the food, fluids, or lifesaving treatment be provided after the decision while the patient or family tried to find another hospital willing to keep the patient alive.

So under these procedures, the hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.

In 1997 there was an advance directives bill going through the Texas legislature that would have given specific legal sanction to such involuntary denial of life-saving treatment. An effort in the Texas legislature to amend the bill to require treatment pending transfer to a health care provider willing to provide the life-saving treatment had been defeated. When that bill reached Governor George Bush’s desk, he vetoed it, and said he was vetoing it precisely because it authorized hospitals to deny lifesaving medical treatment, food, and fluids against the will of the patients.

But even without that bill, these procedures were still going on. So there was an effort in the next sitting of the legislature, in 1999, to pass protective legislation. Unfortunately, the votes just weren’t there to require lifesaving treatment, food, or fluids be provided by unwilling hospitals. So there were negotiations that resulted in a bill that gave partial protection. That 1999 bill:

first, formalized more protections for in-hospital review
second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and
third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.

Now this was not what patient advocates wanted and it wasn’t what Governor Bush wanted. However, it was an important advance over the existing situation of no legal requirement of treatment pending transfer, for any period of time. The votes were not there in the Texas legislature to accomplish a more protective bill. So Governor Bush signed it because it was an improvement over the existing law.

An interesting comparison at the American Thinker.

I know a lot of this has been covered already by Andy, Mark and others. But here's an email in response to my post last night. I think he makes a good argument even if I still have reservations which I'll spell out in a bit:

On the Corner, you complained that "I do think conservative Republicans are at a minimum inconsistent in their sudden love of the fourteenth amendment and an activist federal government." I spent last night explaining this same issue to my father. Here's why you're wrong. The Constitution very simply guarantees that no person "be deprived of life . . . without due process of law." That's the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourteenth (although Florida is bound by the Fifth Amendment because of the Fourteenth). Republicans complain about how expansive due process has become, but have never claimed that the due process of law should be eliminated. This isn't a case of whether due process guarantees a right to sodomy or cushy conditions for prisoners. Simply because Republicans dispute the outer limits of due process jurisprudence does not mean they are inconsistent when they demand that courts administer the absolute core of due process as the Founders envisioned it: arrest, charging, trial by jury and conviction (the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' part was added later, but is not controversial). Due process, since the time of the Founders, has also included petitions for habeas corpus and the executive's prerogative to commute a death sentence. All of these basics are missing in the Schiavo case. Of course, she's never been accused of any crime and I think that's what galls people the most: because she is completely innocent, the decision of whether she lives or dies is made by a judge on a civil standard of proof. No jury, no cross-examination, her husband - who admittedly has interests adverse to hers is acting as her representative, no pardon by the Governor, etc. There's nothing inconsistent in claiming that Schiavo has been deprived of the most fundamental, uncontroversial Constitutional rights available to any serial killer.

A must-read in today's New York Times. John F. Burns offers a sober and cautious but ultimately very positive perspective on progress in Iraq.

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (CNN) -- A U.S. district court judge early Monday was considering whether to order that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be reinserted.

David Gibbs, an attorney for Schiavo's parents, filed court documents overnight requesting that Schiavo be taken from the hospice where she currently is to a hospital where the tube would be put back in.

A judge was assigned the case, but has not yet ruled.

The legal maneuver followed passage of emergency legislation in Congress allowing the case to be turned over to federal court. The law was signed overnight by President Bush.

An attorney for Terri Schiavo's husband Michael said she is confident that the court will find the new U.S. legislation unconstitutional.

Reposting my ANWR piece has invited a whole new crop of Very Angry People to the game. For example:

I don't think i've read anything quite so frightening as your piece, Ugh Widenress. I know the Bushleague and it's syncophants are prepared to, cheat, steal, deceive in every possible manner and cover up their perfidious behavior on their march back into the dark ages; but i didn't realize you are actually willing to commit mass murder not only of animals and plant species just to make a few extra bucks but that you are willing to destroy yourselves as well. You will someday be able to look back and say that you were among the orcs that dealt the final blows to the earth itself. congratulations: you have come to epitomize the union of unrelenting stupidity and limitless greed.

On Monday, March 21, 2005, the President signed into law:

S. 686, which provides that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life; provides that any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under the Act; and establishes other procedures for a suit under the Act.

Today, I signed into law a bill that will allow Federal courts to hear a claim by or on behalf of Terri Schiavo for violation of her rights relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo who live at the mercy of others. I appreciate the bipartisan action by the Members of Congress to pass this bill. I will continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans, including those with disabilities.

WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today hailed passage of the compromise legislation concerning the case of Terri Schiavo.

"Tonight we have given Terri Schiavo all we could: a chance to live," DeLay said. "After four days of words, the best of them uttered in prayer, Congress has acted, and a life may have been saved. Democrats and Republicans, congressmen and senators all deserve respect and gratitude for their commitment to giving Mrs. Schiavo the chance we all deserve."

109TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION

S. ________
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo

______________________________________________________ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

introduced the following bill; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on

_____________________________ AN ACT

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

2 States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE
4 SCHIAVO
5 The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall
6 have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by
7 or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of
8 Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States
9 relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment
10 necessary to sustain her life.

11 SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

12 Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit
13 under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a
14 party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of
15 food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa
16 Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or
17 directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment
18 necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine
19 de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo

20 within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court
21 determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been
22 raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court
23 shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor
24 of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in
25 the State courts have been exhausted.

26 SEC. 3. RELIEF.
27 After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the
28 District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be
29 necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the
30 Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or
31 withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

32 SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.
33 Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this
34 Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this
35 Act.

36 SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
37 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not
38 otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the
39 several States.

40 SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.
41 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on

42 any court to consider any claim related--

43 (1) to assisting suicide, or

44 (2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

45 SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
46 Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future

47 legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

48 SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION
49 ACT OF 1990.

50 Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient

51 Self-Determination Act of 1990.
52 SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
53 It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider

54 policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who
55 are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or
56 withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

Terri’s parents have alleged that the law created by Florida courts in Terri’s case violated both Terri’s rights and theirs because:
1. The guardianship court compromised his judicial independence when the he appointed himself, rather than an independent guardian ad litem, to serve as Terri Schiavo’s health care proxy.
2. The Florida courts permitted Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo and his attorney to represent Terri’s interests notwithstanding the Florida courts own admission that his interests were adverse to hers.
3. The Florida courts did not appoint a guardian ad litem for Terri, nor did they provide her with counsel to argue and protect her interests. The result was a situation in which Terri herself had no assistance of counsel in a case in which her life hangs in the balance.
4. The way the Florida courts applied the state’s law and constitution to incapacitated persons with severe cognitive disabilities violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. After Terri’s case, the only persons in the State of Florida who are not entitled to an independent judiciary and effective representation are incapacitated persons who cannot speak for themselves.
5. The state court order under which Terri’s nutrition and hydration is currently being withheld was entered after a proceeding tainted by “structural defects” that call the integrity of the entire fact finding process in to question. As a result, we simply do not know either “what Terri wants” or what her current medical condition actually is.
6. The state court order violates the standards set out in both federal and state precedents that recognize the right to self-determination in health-care decisionmaking. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 280 (1990) and Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 12 (Fla.1990). Both of those cases recognize that accuracy, not finality, is essential in any case where a guardian has asked for a judicial decree authorizing the death of the a person with a severe disability such as Terri’s.

The Need for the Proposed Legislation
• Review of Terri’s Federal Claims by a Federal Court is an Essential Step in Protecting her Right to Privacy

We have argued in federal court that Terri’s federal rights were violated by the state courts, and that her continued custody in the guardianship violates her constitutional rights. Generally speaking, such reviews can take place in only two ways: 1) direct review by the Supreme Court of the United States by Petition for Certiorari; or 2) a federal writ of habeas corpus.
Because Terri will die within two weeks from starvation and dehydration, the traditional option of a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States is not an option. It simply takes too long.
We did try an emergency motion for a stay, but the Court denied it on Thursday, March 17, 2005. As a result, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler’s only option was a petition to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida asking for a writ of habeas corpus.
Unfortunately for Terri, the habeas corpus statutes are focused almost exclusively on prisoners.
Getting the courts to understand that people in Terri’s situation are also entitled to habeas relief is both difficult and time consuming. On Friday, March 18, 2005 the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed Mr. and Mrs. Schindler’s attempt to get a fair trial for Terri because Judge Moody believed: a) that Terri is not a “person in custody” entitled to habeas relief; b) that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler do not have standing to argue that Terri did not get a fair trial; and c) that the federal courts are duty bound to respect the findings of the Florida courts concerning her wishes.
Because we believe that federal law is to the contrary, we asked for, and received, a “Certificate of Appealability” from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which is currently considering our request that the District Court give Terri and her parents a hearing on their federal claims.

How pathetic was Dana Milbank's apologia? The fact that some liberals accuse him of conservative bias and some conservatives accuse him of liberal bias does not prove that he is doing a good job. The fact that Ari Fleischer notes that the press was tough on Clinton does not disprove (and is not even pertinent to) the idea that the press has a bias on issues. The fact that the RNC and DNC cite stories in the Washington Post when they support their positions does not prove that (and is barely pertinent to the question of whether) the paper is even-handed.

Then there's this: "Would liberals really favor the absence of a press that calls into questions the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's weapons and ties to al Qaeda? Would conservatives really favor the absence of a press that brought the Clinton scandals to light?" Um, has anybody, on either side, who complains about bias been saying that we shouldn't have a press at all?

Look, I've had a very bad week which has distracted me from all of this Schiavo stuff. I need to read and think more about all of it. But I think it's fair to say I'm not exactly on the same page with a lot of my conservative friends and colleagues on many of the issues involved. I'll write more on the issue later. But I have to say I'm disgusted with the faux moral outrage from liberals who are stunned by the idea that the federal government might get involved in issues like this. This is the party which danced a jig over the Violence Against Women Act and which has defined a vast swath of its political raison d'etre around the idea that the federal government should jealously guard the right to abortion and the right to appeal a death sentence in federal courts. And it is now scandalized that the Republican Party is trying to prevent a state court from killing a woman. It's okay for Washington to meddle when a husband slaps his wife, but it's outrageous when Washington tries to stop a husband from killing his wife? It's mandatory that a federal judge make sure a minority isn't passed-over for a promotion, but it's a rejection of the rule of law for a federal judge to make sure that a woman isn't wrongfully starved to death? Thanks to the hard work of Democrats states can't set their own drinking age or voting age, but suddenly state judges should be The Word of God when it comes to slowly killing citizens. I don't get it.

I do think conservative Republicans are at a minimum inconsistent in their sudden love of the fourteenth amendment and an activist federal government. But liberals are no less inconsistent in their sudden love of states' rights on such issues. The difference is that Republicans are embracing a principle they've spent some time upholding -- a culture of life -- while Democrats are spending most of their time whining about the "hypocrisy" of their opponents. I would respect the Democrats more if they had the courage to argue that Terri should die. That is their position.

Not a den of vice, which is a disappointment. No hippies, which is not.

No, I am not a right to lifer. I am a pro choice absolutist. Moreover, my daughter is so sick of hearing me tell her I do not want any extraordinary measures to prolong my life that she promised to throw me down the stairs if things go wrong.

And yet, I find the specter of the most powerful people in the only superpower drop everything to focus on the destiny of a single badly disabled woman edifying.

This is democracy and this is progress. If you do not believe me just compare it to legalized honor killings in Jordan, Pakistani tribal customs which consider gang rape of a woman a just verdict or the enslavement of girls to repay debts in Ghana. In fact, the valiant efforts to end those practices once and for all are the best indicators of democratic progress.

We have come a long way baby and for that we should be truly grateful.

to sort through the issues and get up to speed. But you don't need to be fully up to speed to see some flaws in the Mike Allen/Manuel Roig-Franzia front-pager in this morning's Washington Post. Here's graph 3: "The extraordinary intervention by Washington for a single person, in a wrenching question that families typically wrestle with in private, required a Saturday session of the Senate during Easter recess and will bring both chambers back to the Capitol on Palm Sunday." Hmm. . . wonder which side our reporters are on? Graph 6: "The legislation, which congressional leaders said they plan to pass today or tomorrow, would prolong a medical and legal drama that has pitted the incapacitated Florida woman's husband against her parents." Just getting this woman dead already would certainly be quicker.

The story also mentions the Senate Republican memo on the political upside of this fight. Whoever wrote it should be canned.

Mickey Kaus says I'm wrong and lazy for saying Clinton signed welfare reform out of political expendiency. That's at least a little at odds with what Mickey said before.

But I will concede to the core of Mickey's basic objection -- Clinton did have an independent desire to reform welfare. I think that is a fair point and I may have been too broad in invoking political opportunism as Clinton's sole motive on the issue. However, I think Mickey -- who knows a lot more about welfare than I do (though I spent a lot of time on the subject at AEI) -- would be disingenuous to suggest that political calculation hadn't played an enormous role in the form welfare reform took. If I remember correctly, Clinton vetoed two less dramatic reforms in the hope of passing his own more generous proposals which included increased spending and a new jobs program. He was pulled dramatically to the right by the Republican Congress (and by RNC ads which zinged him on his commitment to welfare reform going into the presidential election) and he ended up signing a bill he surely would have vetoed in, say, 1994.

Regardless, whether Mickey's objection is 100% correct or not doesn't detract from the larger point of my column -- that liberals had no monopoly on "empiricism" in those days, or now.

After a few moments, he leaned forward and described how the Syrian leader had threatened him, curtly ordering him to amend Lebanon's Constitution to give President Émile Lahoud, the man Syria used to block Mr. Hariri's every move, another three years in office.

"Bashar told him, 'Lahoud is me,' " Mr. Jumblatt recalled in an interview. "Bashar told Hariri: 'If you and Chirac want me out of Lebanon, I will break Lebanon.' " He was referring to the French president, Jacques Chirac.

In the month since Mr. Hariri was assassinated, members of Lebanon's anti-Syrian opposition have pointed to that Aug. 26 encounter in Damascus as fateful. Although opposition leaders acknowledge that they lack firm evidence tying Syria or its Lebanese agents directly to Mr. Hariri's assassination, they link that day to his slaying on Feb. 14.

"To tell you the truth, when I heard him telling us those words, I knew that it was his condemnation of death," Mr. Jumblatt said.

As Marwan Hamade, the former minister of economy and trade and a Hariri ally, drove away from his seaside apartment building on Oct. 1, a roadside bomb flung his Mercedes into the air. He clambered from the flaming wreckage and collapsed to the ground at the very moment the car's fuel tank exploded, sending shrapnel flying in all directions. Mr. Hamade managed to survive with head injuries, severe burns and a broken leg.

He was one of four cabinet ministers who had voted against the Lahoud extension and then quit the government. He was also among the 29 Parliament members who voted against the constitutional amendment granting Mr. Lahoud three more years. The failed assassination was seen as a warning.

Among Lebanese, Mr. Lahoud, 68, has a reputation for lounging through most afternoons in his Speedos by the pool at the Yarze country club, reading Paris-Match magazine and holding a tanning mirror. News accounts that he was swimming during Mr. Hariri's funeral reached such a crescendo that he felt compelled to deny them. "I swim every day - it's my workout - but on that specific day, I did not swim," he told a gathering of the Journalists' Union Council.