Peter Mulhern

Pope Benedict XVI

Andrew Sullivan is outraged, depressed and disappointed.  We have a new Pope and the Catholic Church seems unlikely to embrace the gay lifestyle any time soon.  In fact, the Church seems certain to remain an island of sanity in a world gone mad.  If Sullivan, a reliable bellwether of deranged opinion, is depressed the conclave must indeed have been truly guided by the Holy Spirit.

God bless Pope Benedict and help him bear the burdens of his new ministry.  At 77 he has earned the peace of a quiet retirement, perhaps with some light teaching duty.  Instead he has just become one of the world's most public people.  For a shy and scholarly man, the papacy is more a life sentence than the ultimate ecclesiastical prize. 

Christians of every stripe should remember Pope Benedict in their prayers.  Americans should pray that he uses his new authority to clean house in the American Church.  During the last papacy he was partly responsible for the woefully inadequate response to the pederasty scandals that damaged the Church here so badly.  Let's pray that in his new role he will be more active about scrubbing away some of the "filth." 

In so many ways, the man has his work cut out for him.

The Godly vs. The Godless

There's a spirited debate going on in The Corner over at NRO between Stanley Kurtz and Ramesh Ponnuru.  The bone of contention is the much discussed Family Research Council ad that complains about Senate Democrats using the filibuster to target "people of faith."  Ramesh believes that this formula is way over the top because it impugns the faith of believing Democrats and casts a partisan debate as a battle between the godless and the godly.  Stanley Kurtz objects that the FRC deserves a bit more slack because it is just using the standard evangelical code for traditional Christians.

Ramesh is a very smart guy but in this case his argument is a very stupid one and the criticism of it outlined above doesn't go nearly far enough. 

The basic problem with Ramesh's argument is that the Battle of the Judges really is a battle between the godly (with some secular allies) and the godless.  There is no point in mincing around this uncomfortable truth. 

Every now and then we have to step back and remember what all the noise about judges and filibusters is, at root, about.  In 1973 the Supreme Court stamped a hideous moral mistake into our constitutional law.  It held that abortion was a matter of no legitimate collective concern, a private matter in which the state had no interest.  The necessary implication of this holding is that abortion raises no serious moral issues.  All such issues fall within the state's purview under its police power (quick, name one grave moral wrong aside from abortion that the state cannot constitutionally regulate.  Can't do it?  Thought not.)  If abortion falls outside the state's purview it raises no serious moral issues.  QED.

All prominent Democrats are passionately committed to the proposition that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided and that judges should be empowered to make more moral mistakes of the same sort in the future.  This is the bedrock of their creed and the basis of their objection to genuinely religious nominees for judicial office. 

To be a Democrat is to accept the moral mistake of Roe and reject the idea that abortion raises serious moral concerns.  In this respect one can either be a Democrat or "a person of faith" but not both. 

The phrase "person of faith" may be just a tad overbroad.  I suppose one could have a deep faith in Baal and still accept Roe v. Wade (along with human sacrifice and other aspects of barbarism.)  But if you are fighting to perpetuate the tragic error of Roe v. Wade you know nothing about the God of love.  You may consider yourself a Christian.  So did the Lutheran pastors who preached in robes decorated with the swastika.  Self-deception is a common human trait.

To accept Roe v. Wade is to reject the Christian view that human life is inherently and ineffably valuable.  That view is the foundation for Christian ethics and for any other minimally decent ethics.  The Christian view of humanity is an integral part of the faith and nobody who rejects it can properly be called a "person of faith." 

The reality is that Democrats detest people of genuine faith because they are a living rebuke to the Democrat's moral bankruptcy.  This is apparent in their rhetoric.  The Battle of the Judges is not a disagreement among people of goodwill.  It is a contest between the godly and the godless and nobody should be too squeamish to say so. 

A Warrior Pope

As the College of Cardinals gathers in conclave, everybody with a keyboard is offering advice on the proper criteria of selection for a Supreme Pontiff.  Nobody seems to be deterred by the dearth of evidence that the Cardinal Electors are paying any attention to anyone who hasn't got a seat reserved in the Sistine Chapel.  Why should I be an exception?

The Pope has to be many things to many people.  But, just as John Paul II had a special role to play in the collapse of Communism, the new Pope has a special role to play in the ongoing confrontation between Islam and Christendom of which the War on Terror is part.  Right now the Church needs a warrior Pope.  Nothing less will do. 

I don't mean to suggest that the Pope should don helmet and flack jacket for a tour of duty keeping the peace in Fallujah.  It will be enough if the Cardinals elect a man with the strength of mind to help restore some of Christendom's lost self-confidence. 

As long as Democrats are kept at a safe distance from the Oval Office, America can handle the military side of the West's renewed clash with Islam.  The spiritual and cultural aspects of that clash are the special business of the papacy.  The Church, by which I mean something much larger than the Roman Catholic Church, badly needs aggressive leadership from it's most visible leader, the Pope. 

Europe, once the heart of Christendom, is almost lost to Muslim immigrants and native neo-pagans.  The dirty secret of modern European politics is that Europe must either assimilate those immigrants or submit to demographic conquest.  But the intellectually and spiritually impoverished neo-pagans are in no position to assimilate anyone.  They are too effete even to reproduce themselves.  Unless Europe can reconnect with its spiritual and cultural roots it is doomed and Osama Bin Laden's dream of a world dominated by Islam might well come true. 

The new Pope should be the man best-equipped to lead Europe back to its roots.  The Church must work hard to convert Muslim immigrants and reconvert the neo-pagans.  It has some serious inducements to offer. 

Of all the faiths and philosophies people can follow only Christianity gives us what we long for most -- the sense that the universe is not indifferent to us, that we are welcome, that we are at home. 

Popular cant to the contrary notwithstanding Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God.  Allah is a cold and distant deity and Islam, from its inception, was less a religion than an ideology of conquest dressed up in religious trappings.  The followers of a cruel, indifferent God tend to become cruel themselves.  It is no accident that Muslims have cornered the global suicide bombing market. 

The tripartite God knows what it is to be human.  He suffered and died for our sake.  He permits all the suffering of this world, which seems cruel to us, but we cannot think him cruel.  He took on the burdens of human flesh and shared our suffering in full measure. 

My oldest daughter got to the heart of the matter when she was only four.  She asked me, "Daddy, if God is everywhere why are people sad sometimes?  The neo-pagan can only answer that God doesn't exist or doesn't care, which is hardly satisfying.  The Muslim can only answer, with the Book of Job, that we are far too insignificant to understand God's purposes so we shouldn't even ask the question. 

The Christian answer is the only one that satisfies -- we cannot know God's purposes but we can know that He is ultimately on our side.  We know that because He gave us the strongest and most tangible proof imaginable.

The Church has a message that speaks to human beings of every race, culture and generation.  For centuries that message has changed individual lives and shaped civilizations.  It can and must do so again. 

Back in the Dark Ages, the Roman Catholic Church managed to convert the uncouth Irish and the savage Norse.  Proselytizing is much safer and more comfortable in Europe today.  French atheists aren't likely to create many martyrs. 

The risks associated with trying to reclaim Europe for Christendom are slight and the potential rewards are great.  The next Pope needs to be ready, willing and able to go for it. 

Senator Cornyn is Exactly Right

Senator Cornyn is taking all kinds of fire (some of it more or less friendly) in response to a recent speech which included this paragraph:

Finally, I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country -- certainly nothing new; we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that has been on the news. I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification, but that is a concern I have that I wanted to share.

The noise about this statement is another example of the modern custom of excluding from public discourse any acknowledgment of the most obvious and important facts.  Some of the people criticizing Senator Cornyn are the usual suspects.  Some, like NRO's Jonah Goldberg ought to know better.  I sent him an email in the hope that he may return to the path of righteousness:

Jonah,

Why are you so eager to join in the chorus of people who are twisting Senator Cornyn's words so they can suppress a timely and important message? 

Cornyn never advocated violence against judges.  He also never said anything "insupportable on the facts."  There is nothing in the offending paragraph of his speech that says or even suggests that any of the recent examples of courtroom violence stem from frustration about gross judicial overreaching.  Cornyn specifically declined to make any factual statements about causation that might be fair game for criticism.

What he did say was that recent examples of courtroom violence should be a warning to us and to the judiciary.  This is not a rationally debatable point; the good Senator is plainly right.

In the Schiavo case and in other high-profile matters judges have openly and notoriously unmoored themselves from their obligation to the law.  They are making it impossible for us to resolve our most contentious public disputes through rational debate followed by an orderly vote.  The normal politics of a constitutional republic are becoming beside the point. 

If we cannot resolve our differences through normal politics we will descend into violence.  This comes as close to being an absolute law of human history as any statement can.  Cornyn was issuing a well-justified warning.  If we remain on the course our judiciary has set it will end in bloodshed and judges will be among those shedding blood.  This warning neither stupid nor irresponsible.  Ignoring it is both.

Peter Mulhern

It isn't irresponsible to point out the dangers inherent in your situation.  If you are travel ling with a drunk driver who insists on going 100 mph on a country road it is perfectly reasonable to observe that you are likely to end up in the morgue. It is irresponsible to ignore a danger until it becomes a catastrophe, which is what Jonah Goldberg and many others apparently want to do. 

What makes the chattering class completely take leave of its senses whenever the subject of lawyers in black robes comes to the fore? 

Judicial Imperialism

Three times in recent political history state courts have captured national attention by grossly overstepping their proper bounds.  Each time a Republican governor huffed, puffed and ultimately did nothing of consequence.  We are watching the steady erosion of government by the consent of the governed and the rise of an imperial judiciary.

Twice the passive Republican governor was named Bush.  On the other occasion he was a Romney.  The great Republican dynasties evidently haven't retained enough vitality to bear the considerable burdens of executive responsibility.  Their scions should stick to the U.S. Senate, the natural home for flaccid gasbags of both parties. 

What became of the Republican Party's commitment to republican government?  Are the princes of the GOP in charge of the Massachusetts and Florida executives really stupid enough to believe that they work for the judiciary or are they just too cowardly to do the hard job they were elected to do?

Jeb Bush has indicated that he won't defy the web of court orders that mandates Terri Schiavo's death because he lacks the authority to do so.  This is either idiotic or dishonest.  Either way it is appalling.  Jeb isn't subordinate to the courts and he cannot both do his duty and passively accept the judiciary's view of his authority. 

This is the same Jeb Bush who could have resolved the entire Florida 2000 fracas simply by announcing immediately after the statutory recount that the election was over, the result was certified and that, regardless of any court order, the certified result would not be changed.  All subsequent recounts and court proceedings would then have been moot.  As a matter of abstract constitutional principle this would have been the best possible outcome.  When the courts run amok it is the executive that must bring them back in contact with reality. 

I can forgive Jeb for failing to do his duty in the election contest.  His blood ties to the victorious candidate gave him a conflict of interest that was, at a minimum, embarrassing.

In the Terri Schiavo case his passivity is despicable.  He professes to believe action is justified and his power to act is absolutely clear.  He is cowering at the prospect of doing something solely because action would put him in conflict with some pissant judge in Pinellas County.  That is beneath contempt. 

The courts made a hash of Terri's case.  Hash is the principle output of the judicial process; the law truly is an ass.  But primary responsibility for the horror show now unfolding doesn't lie with the courts.  It lies with the man who has the power to cut through all the judicial foolishness, but not the courage.  Someday, in the infernal regions, Jeb Bush and Pontius Pilate will co-host a fascinating panel discussion on the moral implications of spinelessness.  The rest of us can only hope, in all humility, that we won't be in the audience. 

As for Mitt Romney -- what can we say about a man who is ordered to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the laughable ground that there is no rational basis for confining marriage to sexually complimentary couples, and who meekly complies?  Does Romney's vocabulary lack the word "no?" 

Marriage licenses are issued under executive authority.  The people who issue them in Massachusetts work for Mitt.  All Romney had to do when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the state was bound to sanction oxymoronic "homosexual marriages" was to announce that the court was wrong and the executive branch would not comply with its absurd order.  If any functionary tried to obey the court rather than the governor, Mitt could have taken administrative action to have that functionary tossed out into the street with revocation of pension benefits. 

What exactly could the courts have done?  Issued injunctions?  Ignore them.  Entered judgments for damages?  Refuse to pay them.  When the courts deliberately distort constitutional law to bolster their own power they should be ignored.  Make them come to terms with their own impotence.  Obeying them only fans the flames of their megalomania. 

A governor cannot be true to his oath of office if he slavishly accepts even the most fraudulent judicial pronouncement about what that oath requires.  Promising to uphold the law is very different from promising to obey every crackpot edict that can attract a majority on a court packed with fools. 

If you know anything at all about American constitutional law you understand that governors and presidents have to determine for themselves what the constitution and laws require of them, regardless of what any court may say.  All of our most revered leaders have recognized this and talked about it, including, among others, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

How has the Republican Party's aristocracy so completely lost sight of the simplest, most basic constitutional principles?  If Republicans won't oppose the ridiculous imperial pretensions of the judiciary who will?

I wish I knew.

Executive Power Revisited

The Supreme Court won't force the federal courts to do their duty in Terri's case.  What we have now is the perfect constitutional storm. 

The elective branches of both the Florida and the federal government have declared that Terri Schiavo cannot properly be killed without a new, more competent review of the facts that bear on her case.  The judiciary, both state and federal, has decided to thumb its collective nose at our representatives and, by extension, at us. 

In 2003 the Florida legislature passed and Governor Bush signed a law giving the governor the power to take custody of persons in Terri's situation and ensure that they receive proper nutrition and hydration.  The Florida Supreme Court found that law unconstitutional on perfectly spurious grounds. 

The legislature and the governor say the governor has the power to take charge of Terri Schiavo.  The courts say that power is theirs alone.  The only reason to accept the courts' view is that they say we should.  A more ridiculous example of circular reasoning is impossible to imagine. 

The Florida courts are outvoted two to one by the other branches of government.  Governor Bush has a sacred duty to arrive at his own conclusions about the scope of his authority and act to use that authority in accord with his own judgment and conscience.  Court orders and judicial decisions be damned.

In 2000 Jeb Bush was on a collision course with his rogue judiciary over the presidential election.  He didn't have to assert his power to certify a final result in Florida regardless of the judiciary's extra-legal recounts.  The U.S. Supreme Court short circuited the conflict.  This time, it seems, nobody is going to help Jeb spank a wayward judiciary; it all comes down to him.

Governor Bush is the executive charged with exercising Florida's police power.  Whatever happens in Terri's case is on his head.  Let's hope he is suitably aware of his burden.

That said, President Bush could help his brother out if he chose to.  The federal courts have refused to obey the law and keep Terri alive long enough to perform the task Congress assigned to them just last week.  As is the case in Florida, the judiciary is outvoted two to one by the other branches of government. 

The president doesn't need a court order to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed.  That's what President Bush swore to do in his oath of office. 

Terri Schiavo is the subject of an ongoing federal case.  If she dies the case will be mooted and the purpose of the law Congress just passed will be frustrated.  It would be entirely within the power of the President to order that the Department of Justice take Terri into protective custody and ensure that she is fed so that the federal courts have time to do their statutory duty. 

Gut check time boys.  Nobody ever said it would be easy to be a Bush. 

Executive Power

As I cruise the conservative websites to see what people are saying about the Terri Schiavo case it becomes clear that a surprising number of otherwise sensible people seem to think that a court order is holy writ.  The level of ignorance out there regarding basic civics is truly shocking.

There is no valid reason to have a case of the vapors at the suggestion that the Governor of Florida might flout a court order that he considers fundamentally unjust.  You and I have to obey court orders because, in most cases, the executive will encourage us to do so, with deadly force if necessary.  In Florida, Jeb Bush is the executive.  He is coequal with the Florida courts and he is constitutionally empowered and obligated to act in accord with his own judgments about what law and justice require.  He cannot delegate that obligation to the courts any more than Pontius Pilate could leave the fate of an obscure Nazarene preacher to the Jerusalem mob. 

If Governor Bush believes that the Florida courts have failed to develop a record that justifies starving Terri Schiavo to death under the law, he is justified, even duty bound, to act in her defense.  Acting is what executives do, it is what we hire them for.  When rioters are threatening to break into your home and kill your family you don't call the courts.  You call the executive branch and you demand that it protect your fundamental right to life. 

The fact that Terri Schiavo needs protection from a court-ordered threat to her life doesn't change the equation at all.  A governor who concludes that the courts may have failed to protect Terri's fundamental rights is bound by his oath of office to defend those rights.  Governor Bush could easily do so by ordering a full executive investigation of the circumstances surrounding Terri's case, and having the state police take Terri into protective custody pending his final decision regarding her permanent status.  No doubt the complaints would be boisterous, but they would also be baseless.

Florida's government is a conversation among many actors separated into three branches with distinct powers and duties.  The Governor is by far the most important of those actors.  The idea that the judiciary always gets the last word is asinine.  In fact, the executive generally gets the last word.  It controls most of the guns.  This is how our system works; it is how our system has always worked; it is how our system ought to work.  That's democracy in action.

There is no basis at all for hyperventilating about the prospect that the Governor Bush might moot the fatuous judicial process in Terri's case.  Far from representing an affront to the rule of law this would help move us to a better, fuller realization of that ideal.  The law is much more that what some fool who goes to work in a black bathrobe says it is.  The exaggerated respect for judges that is epidemic these days undermines respect for the law and threatens the foundations of our constitutional order. 

Come on Jeb, do your job.

The 11th Circuit Speaks

Our court system is broken, perhaps beyond repair. 

The first prerequisite of the rule of law is that those charged with administering the law are committed to obeying it.  The Terri Schiavo case demonstrates that many of our judges have nothing but contempt with the law that they must interpret and apply.

First Judge Whittemore refused to obey the clear requirement of the law that he review Terri Schiavo's claims de novo.  Then two judges of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (one of whom is a legacy of the first Bush administration) affirmed Judge Whittemore's lawlessness.  We cannot sustain a government of laws when many of our judges feel free to ignore controlling legal authority.

Both Judge Whittemore's order and the 11th Circuit opinion are almost entirely devoted to matters that are beside the point.  They discuss in detail whether Terri's parents are likely to prevail on the merits of their suit because likelihood of success on the merits is traditionally one criterion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.  But nobody is asking for a traditional preliminary injunction in this case.  Nearly everything both Judge Whittemore and the 11th Circuit have to say is, therefore, irrelevant.  All their talk about likelihood of success on the merits is just a fig leaf intended to cover the embarrassing reality that they are refusing to do what Congress obviously and authoritatively ordered them to do.

There is no ambiguity in the statute giving the courts jurisdiction over Terri's case.  Nobody is stupid enough to misunderstand what that law requires.  Congress charged the federal courts with a duty to find the relevant facts and apply the relevant law.  The courts manifestly cannot fulfill this duty if they let Terri die because they think federal proceedings would probably come to the same result the state courts already reached. 

Congress has determined that the state courts did not do their job properly in Terri's case and that the job must be done again.  The federal courts are bound by this determination.  They cannot properly say that the plaintiffs in the case before them probably won't succeed on the merits because the state proceedings look OK to them.  If they ignore Congress and sit on their hands they are demonstrating utter contempt for their obligation to the law.

  Reasonable people can differ about how the law should deal with severely brain-damaged people.  But there is no basis for rational dispute about the obligation of federal judges to obey federal law.  So far in the Schiavo case three federal judges have announced that they are above the law.  Regardless of how one feels about the merits of that case, this is a scandal and an outrage. 

Terri Schiavo's life is no longer the only precious thing at stake in her case.  If we are going to sustain a government of laws our judges have to understand that they have a limited role in the constitutional scheme and they have to play that role. 

Governments can resolve disagreements through reasoned debate and political compromise or they can suppress all disagreement by force.  If our judges won't respect the outcomes of the political process, reasoned debate will become pointless and we will ultimately fall back on force. 

Nobody wants that result.  Unfortunately many people are working hard to bring it about.  We need better judges urgently.  Are you listening Senator Frist?  Can we deal with those filibusters now?

Terri Schiavo Again

A federal judge has now heard argument in Terri's case.  Judge Whittemore, who has the distinction of having been nominated to the bench by a perjurer, has retired to mull the case over in solitary, presumably well-fed, splendor.  Meanwhile a woman is dying from hunger and thirst.  State courts have no monopoly on robed twits.

The recent act of Congress providing for federal jurisdiction over Terri's case left Judge Whittemore with no discretion.  De novo review is required.  De novo means the court starts from scratch and develops a new factual record as a basis for an independent decision.  This cannot be done before Terri Schiavo will die if she continues to be deprived of food and water.  In the ordinary course of judicial business complete litigation of Terri's case, including appeals, will take years. 

To preserve his jurisdiction Judge Whittemore must order that Terri Schiavo once again receive the care necessary to preserve her life.  If he does not he has ceased acting as a judge and taken up the role of lawless buffoon previously played to rave reviews by a Florida state judge.

There is no plausible basis for questioning the constitutionality of the law that orders Judge Whittemore to take jurisdiction.  He is faced with a simple choice -- He can follow the law or he can break it.  It isn't surprising that a Clinton appointee would consider this a difficult decision. 

Plainly the judicial process has its limits.  The proper remedy for the sort of madness that is murdering Terri Schiavo has nothing to do with any court.  When judges make indefensible orders the people with real power should just ignore them.  Governor Bush commands a significant paramilitary force.  Why should he pretend he is powerless to save a woman merely because an insignificant functionary with the title judge wants to snuff her? 

Governor Bush and the Florida legislature both disagree with the courts about the proper resolution of Terri's case.   There is no principled basis for concluding that the courts trump the other two branches of government.  Anyone who says that the rule of law means the courts always win every dispute with the other branches of government is either ignorant or dishonest.  To paraphrase Andrew Jackson -- the Florida courts have made their decision, let's see if they can enforce it.

Governor Bush can and should order a SWAT team to take custody of Terri Schiavo and transfer her to some secure facility where she can receive proper care.  He should then explain to the people of Florida that their courts have misrepresented both facts and law in their enthusiasm for Terri Schiavo's death.  He should tell them that he has acted to vindicate the law in spite of a lawless judiciary.  The press would have a collective conniption fit, the storm would blow over, Terri Schiavo would live,and our nation would take a significant step away from government by judiciary.  Not a bad day's work.

How about it Jeb?  At a stroke, and with very little political risk, you could establish yours as the biggest, brassiest orbs in all of clan Bush.  That's got to be worth something to you. 

Terri Schiavo and Bush v. Gore

All the noise about federalism and the rule of law in connection with the struggle to save Terri Schiavo's life is a teeming school of red herrings.  Terri's case doesn't pit the federal government against Florida and Congress has posed no threat to the rule of law. 

On the contrary, Congress and President Bush are aligned with Florida's elected officials in an effort to discipline a state judiciary that has run completely out of control.  This is a familiar story.  It is the same story that so absorbed the nation as the year 2000 drew to a close.  The Florida courts are chronically incompetent and corrupt.  They cannot find facts and they cannot understand law. 

They made a pig's breakfast of a federal election by making up rules after the fact to suit their partisan convenience.  Now they want to starve an innocent woman to death without ever holding a meaningful hearing.  The judicial jackass who has been in charge of Terri's case up until now has adamantly refused to hold a proper hearing to determine either how she would have wanted to be treated in her current circumstances or what exactly those circumstances are.  It's enough to make one wonder who exactly is brain-damaged in this scenario. 

Because the Florida courts are so inept, everyone is opining about Terri's case in the absence of any reliable information.  There are important federal issues at stake here, just as there were in Bush v. Gore.  No sane person could deny that the feds have a role to play when a state court tries to subvert a presidential election.  Similarly, no sane person can deny that the feds need to get involved when a state starts trying to off people without any competent finding of a legal or factual basis for doing so.  If the guarantee of due process means anything, it means that what the Florida courts are trying to do is beyond the constitutional pale.  There is no reason that Congress shouldn't invite the federal courts to say so.

There is a little noted constitutional provision that should be noted in this context.   Article IV, section 4 provides that the "United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. . . ."  The arrogant presumption of the Florida judiciary in Terri's case represents a serious threat to republican government.  The Florida courts badly need squelching and the federal government is the Constitution's designated squelcher

The rule of law is no more use to those who yearn for Terri Schiavo's death than is federalism.  Adhering to the rule of law does not mean accepting the finality of all judicial decisions no matter how idiotic they may be.  The Federal government acted to give Terri Schiavo a competent judicial hearing in place of the contemptible travesty of the Florida proceedings.  This act honors the rule of law.  The suggestion to the contrary is unadulterated nonsense. 

After they mutter vaguely about federalism and the rule of law, the proponents of Terri Schiavo's murder have very little to say for themselves.  They should be ashamed.  Decent people don't euthanize pets on such flimsy grounds. 

How did such a large slice of our chattering class so completely lose sight of the foundational moral principle that human life is precious?