Pat Sajak: game show host and right-wing blogger.

via Jane Galt

What Feddie will be watching this coming Sunday evening.

"Pope in Sharp Turn for Worse with Fever, Infection": The AP has this report.

Needless to say, my thoughts and prayers are with the Holy Father.

Terri Schiavo: RIP, sweet soul.

Rotary Club speech: A few people have requested copies of the speech I recently gave to the Macon Rotary Club, so I've decided to upload it for SA's readers.

I was initially reluctant to this because I did not have time to completely polish it up or include footnotes. But I trust that y'all will be understanding in that regard.

Let me know what y'all think.

Affirmative Action on the Police Force

Over at LewRockwell.com, John Lott has a good essay up on the effects of affirmative action in police departments in light of Brian Nichols' escape in Atlanta. Here is one interesting result of his research:

Increasing the number of women officers under these reduced strength and size standards consistently and significantly increases the number of assaults on police officers. In general, every 1 percent increase in the number of women in a police force results in a 15 to 19 percent increase in the number of assaults on the police, because women tend to be weaker than men.

Why? The more likely that a criminal's assault on a police officer will be successful, the more likely criminals will do it. The major factor determining success is the relative strengths and sizes of the criminal and officer. The 200-pound Nichols might have decided not to try to escape had his guard been closer to his own size.

This ought not surprise anyone. It's common sense. But, considering that fashionable notions of radical equality would have us all as interchangeable cogs, this might not go over so well with the elites.

Never Again: Again and Again: The latest CFD installment:

In her 2001 article "Bystanders to Genocide," Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power recounts how President Clinton was shocked and outraged by an article written by Philip Gourevitch recounting the horrors of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, prompting him to send the article to his national security advisor Sandy Berger with a note scrawled in the margin reading "Is what he's saying true? How did this happen?"

After taking office, President Bush reportedly read Power's article on the Clinton administration's failure to intervene during the genocide. He too scrawled a message in the margin - "NOT ON MY WATCH."

Yet we are now faced with another African genocide, this time in Darfur, and the United States and the rest of the world are responding exactly as they did during Rwanda - with paralyzed inaction.

Though there are many key differences between what is taking place in Darfur and what occurred in Rwanda a decade ago, there are also many similarities.

In 1993, the world watched "Schindler's List" and wondered how such horrors could unfold and why they were not stopped. In 2004, it watched "Hotel Rwanda" and asked the same questions. In each case, those questions went unanswered.

Just as in Rwanda, the international military force on the ground in Darfur is far too small, poorly equipped and operating under an extremely limited mandate that does not allow them to protect civilians at risk.

Just as in Rwanda, the genocide is taking place against a backdrop of "civil war," leading the international community to focus more on establishing a cease-fire than protecting those being killed.

Just as in Rwanda, the death toll is nearly impossible to determine.

Just as in Rwanda, the United Nations is more or less paralyzed as individual nations seek to protect their own national interests rather than helpless men, women and children.

Just as in Rwanda, media coverage is almost nonexistent, Congress is all but silent, and the human rights community is having difficulty get the nation to pay attention to a genocide in progress.

Just as in Rwanda, a genocide is unfolding - but this time it is happening on our watch.

We ask you to join the Coalition for Darfur as we attempt to raise awareness of the genocide in Darfur and raise money for the live saving work Save the Children is doing there.

Update: Be sure not to miss the movie "Not on my watch" over at Aegis Trust.

The 59: The AP obtained a letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) signed by 59 former diplomats urging the senator to oppose the nomination of Josh Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

To quote the AP piece:

[T]hey said Bolton had worked as a paid researcher for Taiwan and supported recognition of it as a sovereign state, and said he was skeptical of U.N. peacekeeping operations.

Gasp! A critic of the UN and supporter of Taiwan? This man must be stopped!

Anyway, Lefty blogger Steve Clemons has the full text of the letter and the list of signees. The diplomats who signed served under Democratic and Republican administrations and in many cases, the diplomats served under both Dems and Reps. I thought it would be interesting to find out to whom, if anybody, some of the signees donated money to in the last few election cycles.

I used opensecrets.org's handy-dandy "Donor Lookup" feature and searched through the 2000, 2002, and 2004 election cycles. I first searched the names of those listed in the AP story and when I found the full list of signees, I searched some of those who served exclusively under Republican admins. The results are rather revealing (I'm only mentioning those that returned a result.):

Arthur Hartman (Carter, Reagan):
2004: $2000 total for Diplomats & Commanders for Change
$400 total Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte
$200 DNC Services Corp
2003: $1,435 American Foreign Service Assn
$300 Richard Lugar
2002: $250 John Cornyn
1999: $250 Al Gore

Note: The group, Diplomats & Commanders for Change, was a group of retired diplomats and generals who, you guessed it, opposed Bush in 2004.

Princeton Lyman (Reagan, GHWB, Clinton):
2004: $250 Dem. Senatorial Campaign Cmte
$225 Dem. Congressional Campaign Cmte
$1000 Diplomats & Commanders for Change
$500 DNC Services Corp
2003: $1000 DNC Services Corp
2002: $1000 DNC Services Corp

James F. Leonard (Carter, Ford):
2004: $440 DNC Services Corp

Spurgeon Keeny (Clinton):
2004: $500 John Kerry

Some who served exclusively under Republican adminstrations:

Carleton Coon, Jr.:
Former U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh (Reagan)

2003: $500 Howard Dean
2002: $850 Chris Van Hollen (Dem who won 2002 MD congressional race over liberal GOP incumbent Connie Morella)
$500 Ben Jones (Dem congressional candidate, plus starred on the Dukes of Hazzard)

Jane A. Coon:
Former U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh (Reagan)
2002: $250 Chris Van Hollen
2001: $500 Chris Van Hollen

Richard T. Davies:
Former U.S. ambassador to Poland (Nixon)
2004: $500 Ken Longmyer
2003: $3000 Chris Van Hollen

Willard A. Depree:
Former U.S. ambassador to Mozambique and Bangladesh (Ford, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush)
2004: $500 Diplomats & Commanders for Change

Donald B. Easum:
Former U.S. ambassador to Nigeria and Upper Volta (Burkina Faso) (Nixon, Ford)
Former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (Nixon, Ford)
2004: $2000 Diplomats & Commanders for Change

Samuel F. Hart:
Former U.S. ambassador to Ecuador (Reagan)
Returned one result, showing a donation to JC Watts in 2001 and under "Occupation" Mercer Univ is listed. A quick Google search shows that this is most likely a different Mr. Hart.

Dennis Kux:
Former U.S. ambassador to Ivory Coast (Reagan)
2004: $500 Environment 2004
$250 Jim Moran (D-VA)
2002: $750 Chris Van Hollen
2001: $250 Chris Van Hollen

David Passage:
Former U.S. ambassador to Botswana (G.H.W. Bush)
2004: $200 DNC Services Corp

David Rhinelander:
Deputy Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (Nixon)
Legal adviser to the U.S. Strategic Arms Limitation Delegation
(SALT I) (Nixon)
2004: $500 Moveon.org
$250 John Kerry
2002: $500 Joseph D. Courtney

James M. Wilson, Jr.
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, East Asia and Pacific Affairs (Nixon) Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, Department of State (Ford)
There are several James M. Wilson's listed and it is difficult to know which one if any is this Wilson.

---

As we can see, this is a prety left-leaning bunch of people, even the so-called Republicans. I mean, David Rhinelander who served under Nixon gave to Moveon.org, for crying out loud. Even Lincoln Chafee would call those "Republicans" listed above pinkos.*

Fun Fact : You'll note that Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is rather popular with this crowd. Apparently they are good friends with Ambassador Christopher Van Hollen, the younger Chris's father, who is also among the signees.

Bonus Fun Fact: Another signee is William J. vanden Heuvel, father of The Nation editoress Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Super Bonus Fun Fact: If you really don't have a life have the time, you can check on opensecrets.org donations going back to the 1990 election cycle.

Footnotes:
* Maybe.

Text of Birch Opinion Available Here. Judge Birch does a fine job of breaking down Congress' Schiavo law, and exposes seemingly fatal Constitutional weaknesses.

G.H.W. Bush Appointee to the 11th Circuit Birch Slaps Congress, G.W. Bush. Finally someone said it, and in a way I wish I had from the get-go.

In resolving the Schiavo controversy it is my judgment that, despite sincerity and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution. - Judge Stanley Birch

This is a strong federalist approach to the Schiavo legislation, and I think the better one to take.

The article I lifted the quote from is here. If anyone has a link to the full text of the opinion, please post it in the comments section.

11th Circuit rejects emergency bid by Bob and Mary Schindler for a new hearing in their case: The AP has this report.

The article notes that "[t]he court did not disclose the vote breakdown, but the order did say Judge William Pryor did not vote because he is recovering from surgery."

Our thoughts and prayers go out to Judge Pryor as he recovers from his surgery.

Liberal professor--ignorant or deliberately deceptive? I'm back, but swamped, so it may be a bit before I resume regularly posting. However, I've been itching to post this since it was first published. The Notre Dame student newspaper, The Observer, ran this three-part series discussing the partisan political liberal slant of adademia. In defending that slant, a liberal Professor reasoned:

"I think if an institution doesn't encourage a more liberal view of life and society, then it's not doing its job," Sayre said. "The liberal arts are not named as they are for no reason ... Their goal is to liberate you, to expand your horizons and as you expand your horizons you're going to get less conservative."

Either Professor Sayre is ignorant and does not know that "liberal" in "liberal arts" means "classical liberal," and not "liberal" in the American political sense as the series was discussing, or he is intentionally misleading the students. I'm not sure which is worse.

Two old-school Alabama Democratic officeholders have passed away: Howell Heflin, U.S. Senator from 1979 to 1997, died yesterday, age 83. Just the day before, Tom Bevill, U.S. Congressman for the 4th District from 1967 to 1997 -- and for much of that time the grand poo-bah of the House Appropriations Committee -- died at age 84. Fof editorials looking back over their careers, check out the Birmingham News, the Huntsville Times (on Bevill), and the Montgomery Advertiser (on Bevill).

Hope is (apparently still) on the way: Check out the CPWO at UNC Law:

If we can put a man on the moon, conquer polio, and put libraries of information on a chip, we can end poverty for those who want to work for a better life.

Back: Sorry to have been away for so long, but I've been working very hard to get the dissertation out the door and so haven't had much time to blog around these parts. The thing is out the door on its way to my committee - and, yes, it does feel good. (It will feel better when the committee gives me a thumbs-up).

And now for something completely different: Different and lighter in nature, which I for one could stand right about now. Here's a couple of musical items. The Drive-By Truckers' concert DVD "Live at the 40 Watt" is now out. My copy should be waiting for me this evening when I get home, so a review should be forthcoming. To recap for the non-Trucker-initiated: They rock. Hard. You should be listening to them.

Secondly, Webb Wilder has FINALLY released a new CD, "About Time." I'll be placing my order forthwith, even though Amazon doesn't have any listenable links. Why wait to listen when it's the Webbster? Work hard, rock hard, eat hard, sleep hard, grow big, wear glasses if you need 'em.

Going Down Fighting. Just when you thought Terri's parents had turned every stone, the 11th Circuit agrees to open the possibility of further review. Is it too little, too late from Atlanta? I guess that depends on Terri's strength this late in her starvation.

New Yorker bleg: Do any of y'all have a copy of the most recent issue of the New Yorker? It has an article on Justice Scalia that I would really like to read. So if you have the issue in question, I would really appreciate it if you would send me a pdf copy of the piece via email. Thanks!

Academic freedom under attack from both right and left?

Donald Downs from the Independent Institute has an interesting op-ed up on academic freedom. He closes with this warning:

But the last thing American campuses need is censorship from the right piling onto the preexisting censorship from the left. Universities will not regain the public trust that they have squandered until they stand up and defend the principles of free speech and academic freedom for everyone, regardless of their politics.

Take a look.

Wow: An early contender for post of the year, courtesy of the still-on-hiatus Mark Shea. Here's a taste:

I'm not a prophet and I don't know what the immediate future holds. I hope that aging Baby Boomers will get a clue that They're Next. I hope that feminists will figure out that this was not a triumph for their cause. I hope that Americans will lead the world in repenting of this heartless utilitarian rejection of human dignity. I hope that Democrats will flee the Party of Death and Republicans will triumph over the Derbyshire/Sullivan "Religion is all very well in it's place" wing of Selfish Conservatism and offer, not just token gestures, but courageous acts of defiance of the Imperial Judiciary. I hope the rising generation will boldly follow John Paul in being truly counter-cultural and creating the Culture of Life. But I don't know any of that will happen. It's quite possible we will continue to get darker. It's quite possible that as the culture gets darker, God will use the darkness to drive chosen souls toward the light out of sheer repugnance. I don't know what future history holds. I only know what eternity holds: Jesus Christ has already defeated death. I have hope that because of this, Terri's blood will again be the seed of the Church. But whether or not I see that happen is irrelevant. The simple fact is, Jesus has conquered death and so, it remains permanently true that "Joy, which is the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian." Therefore, it is not self-delusion or Happy Face Christianity or Kumbaya Catholicism to be joyful. It is cold, sober realism.

Enter into the Joy! Christ is Risen! He is Risen indeed!

Two Pryor-related pieces from the B'ham News, "Both sides find ammo in Pryor's record" and "High Court shows Pryor restraint." I especially liked the following excerpts from the latter:

Democrats knew they couldn't stop Pryor from being approved by the Senate because he had a majority of the votes, so they filibustered even a decision on the nomination. That's the hypocrisy of U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who challenged Pryor's recess appointment. Kennedy and others argue Bush pre-empted the Senate's constitutional role of "advise and consent" on judicial nominations when he appointed Pryor. In fact, the Senate refused its advise and consent role when it failed to take up Pryor's nomination and others made by Bush.

The unfair gripe from liberals about Pryor is that Pryor is too conservative and that, as a federal judge, he'll ignore the law in favor of his personal beliefs. Pryor is pro-life and has a deep religious faith, yet his record before becoming a federal judge, and since, shows he rules on the law, not personal belief.

Remember that Pryor believes public displays of the Ten Commandments should be allowed, yet he courageously prosecuted former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore when Moore defied federal courts that ordered him to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the state Judicial Building.

Pryor is a principled judge - and, as he has shown time and again, his main principle is following the law.

Bush has renominated Pryor, and the hope is that the Senate will give him a fair vote. If the Senate continues to avoid its responsibility on Pryor's nomination, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will lose an outstanding legal mind and a promising jurist.

Here's a conference I would attend if I were on spring break this week (instead of last week): "The Future of American Education and Politics," to be held this Thursday, March 31, at Berry College in Rome, Georgia, will feature a debate between William Galston (U. of Md.) and Harvey Mansfield (Harvard) on the question "Should America have a Democratic or Republican future?" (Sponsors include, in addition to Berry, Oglethorpe U., the U. of West Georgia, ISI, and the Arthur Rupe Foundation.)

Any SA readers who attend this are hereby invited to share their impressions via the comments function.

"The Supreme Court and the rule of law?": For those of y'all who live in the Macon area, I will speaking to the old Rotary Club of Macon today at 12:00 p.m. So if you have a relative or friend who can get you in, I'd love to see you there. And if you don't know anyone in the Rotary Club, and you really would like to see my speech, shoot me an email and I'll see what I can do about getting you on the list.

He is Risen!



GLORIA in excelsis Deo. Et in terra pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis. Laudamus te. Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te. Gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuum. Domine Deus, Rex cælestis, Deus Pater omnipotens. Domine, Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe. Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris. Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram. Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris, miserere nobis. Quoniam tu solus Sanctus, Tu solus Dominus. Tu solus Altissimus, Jesu Christe. Cum Sancto Spiritu, + in gloria Dei Patris. Amen.

Easter, the Christian Narrative, and Why It Is Reasonable to Believe It

My comments today are not to meant be a knock-down drag-out apologetic for Christian theism. Rather, they are meant to convey, in simple terms, the Christian narrative and why some of us celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord today.

(1) The Christian Narrative. According to the Christian Scriptures, human beings have violated the moral law of God and need to be made right with Him. That is, human beings are in need of salvation but are powerless to achieve this on their own. This is why God became a human being in Jesus of Nazareth so that he may pay the sacrifice necessary to atone for our sins, his own death on the cross. Christians believe that Jesus rose bodily from the grave three days after his death and 40 days later ascended into heaven. Shortly after that Jesus’ apostles and disciples established His church, a body of believers that continues to grow to this very day. This church is diverse in its membership, including both men and women and people from every race, nationality and region of the globe. Christianity attracts such a wide range of people because it offers to the world good news that touches the human heart in a way that is not contingent on cultural idosyncracies or racial or nationalistic affiliations: God loves us so much that he became a human being and suffered and died so that He may forgive us our sins and by His grace offer us the free gift of eternal salvation.

(2) Reasons to Believe This Narrative. There have been many reasons offered to believe this narrative. I will present two here.

a. Jesus is Either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. Either Jesus was who he said he was—the Son of God—or he was a liar, or he was a lunatic. These are the only options. Yet, the picture of Jesus that we receive is one of a psychologically balanced individual who had incredible wisdom concerning our duties to others. He was willing to die, which means he believed himself to be who he said he was. A liar has courage as brittle as his conscience. A liar may do many things, but he does not march to his death for what he knows to be false. Thus, Jesus was either a lunatic—he sincerely believed himself to be the Son of God even though he was not—or he was Lord—he sincerely believed himself to be the Son of God because he was the Son of God. As the Cambridge scholar C. S. Lewis has pointed out, many people believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher. But if he was, it is unlikely that he was a lunatic. Great moral teachers are typically balanced, mature people possessing intestinal fortitude and personal integrity. Do you think the picture of Jesus we get from history and the New Testament is that of a lunatic, a David Koresh or Osama Bin Laden bent on a single idea that is self-defeating? It does not seem that way to me. It seems to me that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. But that means that he was Lord. Those are the only options. (Someone may bring up the option of "legend." But given the fact that the early church creeds, such as the one found in I Cor. 15, have their origin in the Christian church only a few years after Jesus' ministry, shows that it is likely that Jesus's self-understanding was precisely what these creeds, and the Gospels and Epistles, convey).

b. The Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection is Very Strong. There are certain core-facts about Jesus that virtually all scholars agree on: (1) Jesus died by crucifixion; (2) His tomb was found empty three days later; (3) His followers (the apostles and other disciples) believed that they had had experiences with Christ after his death; (4) His followers were willing to suffer death for their belief that they had met the risen Christ. These facts, which are rarely if ever disputed by even unbelievers, are diffcult to account for apart from Jesus actually rising from the dead. Although it is common for those that doubt the resurrection to say that the early church made up the story, this theory fails to account for the church itself (not to mention having no evidence in its favor). That is, Jesus’ resurrection makes sense as the cause of the early church, a body of believers who personally knew Jesus and would have recanted their belief if they knew that the resurrection was a fabrication. But not one of Jesus’s early disciples who believed that they had met Jesus after the resurrection ever recanted. In fact, many of them (including 11 of the 12 apostles) suffered horrible torture and death for their beliefs, something that does not make sense if they had made the whole thing up. Granted, people die for false beliefs. But rarely if ever does anyone die for a belief they know is false.

Why then do people doubt Jesus’ resurrection? It is not for lack of evidence, that’s for sure. It’s because they assume that miracles do not happen, that the natural world is all there is and that there is no God who can intervene in nature. But that begs the question. Such an objection does not refute the evidence; rather, it tries to explain it away.

For those who want to read more about Christian theism and the arguments for its rationality, let me recommend the book I edited with William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, To Everyone An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview (InterVarsity Press, 2004). You can find it here.

SOME THOUGHTS ON EASTER.
After reading the Easter story in Mark and Luke and watching Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” I was struck with an interesting realization. All my life when listening to the story of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection I always looked at the Chief Priests, Scribes, and Pilate as being not just contemptible, but contemptible in a way that made them different from me, almost as if they were a different species. However, upon reflection I don’t think that is true.

For instance, often times Pilate is looked upon as a spineless Roman bureaucrat who lacked the courage to save an innocent man. Isn’t it just as likely that Pilate, as a member of a pagan society that practically worshiped faithful devotion to the state, was simply acting as a prudent colonial governor trying to keep the peace in an unstable imperial territory by acquiescing to the passionately stated desires of that community’s religious leaders? By making the aforementioned observation I am not trying to excuse or praise Pilate’s actions. Nevertheless, I can’t help thinking that many of us might have behaved in a similar fashion if we had been in Pilate’s shoes.

I think the same could be said of the Chief Priests and the Scribes. Whereas we look with condemnation on the manifestly unjust manner in which they apprehended and condemned Jesus, we should remember that they thought they were saving their community from the negative influences of a false priest. Again, I am not trying to excuse their behavior. I do think that many of us might be surprised just how far we would go in order to preserve and protect that which we believe in and support.

Consequently, yet another beautiful aspect of the Easter story is its universality. Anyone of us could have easily acted as Pilate, the priests, or even Peter as he denied Christ in fear for his own safety. We are Pilate. We are the priests. We are Peter. Yet in spite of our shortcomings God loved us enough to send his son to endure the pain of the cross so that we might be saved.

Genocide Intervention Fund: Elisabeth Jaquette, a student at Swarthmore College working with the Genocide Intervention Fund, was kind enough to send CFD the following information:

Come make noise and take action to STOP THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!

Join us for a press conference Launch and CongressRUSH in the nation's capital!

You can register here.

When: 11AM, Wednesday, April 6th

Where: The Senate Hart Building in Washington, D.C.

What: Since February 2003, the Sudanese Government, using Arab "Janjaweed" militias, its air force, and organized starvation, has killed more than 380,000, displaced almost 3 million, and continues to kill at least 15,000 Darfurians each month. The UN Secretary-General has called it "little short of hell on earth."

April 6th marks the 11th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide that resulted in 800,000 Rwandan deaths. We will remember the 100 days of Rwandan genocide by taking action against the genocide in Sudan.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ), and Congressman Donald Payne (D-NJ), the congressional leaders on this issue, will speak on this issue and the launch of the Genocide Intervention Fund at a press conference in the Senate's Hart building (room 216) from 11AM-12PM.

We hope to fill the room with concerned citizens from all over the country - our representatives will see Americans demanding action in Darfur.

CongressRUSH will follow the press conference. We will break into teams to meet with our senators and representatives to urge them to co-sign the Darfur Accountability Act and other pertinent legislation. Lunch and lobby training will be provided. Help make "Never Again" a reality - your presence is needed on this day to exert political pressure on our congressmen.

Don't Talk Action, Take Action! Come to Washington, D.C. and make noise!

You can register here.

Or by e-mailing Jennesa Calvo-Friedman at calvo@genocideinterventionfund.org.
Include:
* Your full name
* Your preferred e-mail address
* Your address, state, and zip code (So you can meet with your
representative)
* Your phone number

For more information about the Genocide Intervention Fund, 100 Days of Action, and the situation in Darfur, please go to the Genocide Intervention Fund's website

The good and bad of writing briefs for a living, as came to me while driving to the office today:

Perspicuous complexity versus conspicuous perplexity.

Seventh Circuit Upholds Ten Commandments Display

FindLaw has the opinion here. The panel (Flaum, Easterbrook and Sykes) held that the display satisifed the much-maligned Lemon test, because "[t]he County's stated purposes -- to educate its citizens in the history of American law and politics and provide moral uplift -- are secular...."

The meaning of Good Friday, courtesy of Jimmy Akin.

Co-equal branches of government?
There is a bizarre myth out there that all three branches of government should be exactly co-equal. (Liberals seem to think, actually, that the judicial branch actually by design is STRONGER than the other two, but they have no clue.) To which, I respond: "Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may be truly siad to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably that the judiciary is beyond the comparison the weakest of the three departments of power (the celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.")." -- Federalist, 78.

What the 11th Circuit ought to have decided:

In contradistinction to other motions for appellate review concerning the case of Terry Schiavo, the case before us today is simple: Should we issue an injunction ordering the reinsertion of a feeding tube into the Florida woman named Terry Schiavo? The question comes before us with the understanding that such reinsertion will in no way prejudice the ultimate disposition of her case.
The reason the question comes before us is because Congress has passed, and the president has signed, a bill granting to the federal courts de novo review of Ms. Schiavo's case. Injunctive relief is sought by Ms. Schiavo's parents so that she may be kept alive until the case may be heard, in full, de novo. For purposes of injunctive relief we must assume that the law is constitutional, although such assumption in no way prejudices later challenges to its constitutionality.
An amicus brief by the U.S. Department of Justice notes that the "All Writs Act" gives a federal court the right to issue all writs necessary to maintain our jurisdiction in a case where our jurisdiction is clear.
In this case, Congress has expressly ordered the federal courts to consider the case de novo, meaning that our jurisdiction is indeed clear.
No precedents are directly applicable in this case because Congress' act so directing us is a unique act.
Ordinarily, injunctive relief of the sort requested is predicated upon four variables, the first of which is that there must be a "substantial likelihood of success on the merits." In a case of de novo review, however, it is important to note that, almost by definition, there is assumed to be an incomplete record for us to consider. If the review is de novo, there is virtually no way to tell whether the chances of the plaintiffs' success are "substantial."
Of the other three standards of review, the most important is "that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted." Obviously, no injury is more irreparable than death. Yet, if the feeding tube is not reinserted, death will certainly occur. The plaintiffs' request obviously, therefore, meets that legal burden.
The question then becomes, what are we as judges required by law to do? In this case, the law is unique. The law applies only to this case. The law orders us to grant de novo review. We cannot grant such review, or any review, if the case is moot -- and if Ms. Schiavo is dead, the case is most definitely moot.
If our own standard of "irreparable harm" is met, and if the statutory obligation upon this court requires that the case be heard and therefore that the case not be moot (and therefore that Ms. Schiavo still be alive while the merits of the case are fully considered), and if prior legislation in the form of the All Writs Act gives us the power in general to protect our jurisdiction by issuing a Writ of Injunction that would indeed keep Ms. Schiavo alive, then this court is not just allowed, but mandated, to order such an injunction so as to afford a federal district court a full and unbiased de novo review.
We therefore reverse the decision of the federal district court, and grant the injunctive relief sought by Ms. Schiavo's parents, and order the relevant medical authorities to reinsert the patient's feeding tube so long as, and only so long as, her de novo case can by adjudicated properly in the federal courts.
It is so ordered.

The manliness of Theodore Roosevelt: If you have not yet read Prof. Harvey Mansfield's excellent essay in the March issue of The New Critierion you can now do so on the web. It is well worth a read.

Cheney for President in '08?: Today's Washington Times reports that a small Cheney-for-President contingent is growing both larger and more vocal. Larry Kudlow who writes for National Review, Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, and Tod Lindberg of Policy Review have all written columns recently urging the VP to run for the Oval Office in 2008.

They say his foreign-policy credentials make him the most qualified heir to Mr. Bush's legacy of Middle East democratization. "He's the logical successor," Mr. Barnes said. "He has the experience at the highest levels of government that no one else can match. And he is the embodiment, along with President Bush himself, of the achievements of the Bush administration."

It seems as though the list of possible/probable Republican candidates grows larger everyday. Cheney in '08? Sitting here today, in March of '05, I find it highly unlikely that Vice-President Cheney would run for office in 2008. However, if no one in the already large group of hopefuls is able to break away from the pack by summer of '06 he might be forced to run.

Nader pleads for Terri's life: Wow. I am pleasantly stunned.

Design bleg: I am seriously contemplating a redesign for SA, but will only do so if it is possible to create the exact "look" I envision in my mind. To do what I want to do will require the assistance of a talented artist and/or computer graphics guru. Anyone out there fit that bill?

And the split gets wider: As I've mentioned before, I was appointed by the CJA Panel of the Eleventh Circuit a while back to represent a former prisoner who is seeking to sue the State of Georgia under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for various and sundry constitutional violations. The only question on appeal is whether my client exhausted his administrative remedies within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act even though he failed to submit his claims to prison officials in a timely manner.

At the time I filed my brief with the Court, things looked bleak. Three circuits--the 3rd, 7th, and 10th--had rendered decisions holding that a prisoner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies in a timely manner amounts to a failure to exhaust within the meaning of the Act. Only the 6th Circuit had ruled the opposite way, and in that case the panel split 2-1 with a blistering dissent. Shortly after filing my brief, however, the 2nd Circuit issued an opinion that, while not going as far as the 6th Circuit, was largely favorable to my client's position. And today, manna from heaven came down, courtesy of the Ninth Circuit. Yes, you heard me right, the Ninth Circuit. As Howard Bashman noted over at How Appealing today:

[T]he Ninth Circuit today rejected the rulings of three other federal appellate courts which have held that an inmate's failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the merits of his grievance, bars the inmate from bringing a subsequent federal suit challenging prison conditions. Instead, as a result of today's ruling, in the Ninth Circuit a prisoner can sue in federal court, even if he failed to take advantage of available administrative remedies to redress his claim, so long as the time for taking advantage of those administrative remedies has passed.

You can read the panel's excellent decision here.

I would be remiss if I failed to note my respectful disagreement with Howard's assertion that the Ninth Circuit's decision "rendered the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's administrative remedies exhaustion requirement nearly toothless." For all of the reasons noted in the Ninth Circuit's decision, and those outlined in my brief, I think this characterization misses the mark by a wide margin. But Howard is quite right in saying that "[t]his issue is certainly deserving of U.S. Supreme Court review and is now quite likely to receive it." I wholeheartedly agree, and hope to be the one arguing the prisoner side of the issue before the Supremes.

BTW, thanks to Mike over at Crime & Federalism for the kind mention.

The law
Congress ordered the Schiavo case to be heard de novo. It can't be heard de novo if Schiavo is dead. Therefore, the courts have a duty to keep her alive until the case can be offered anew. For a court to do otherwise is for a court to fail to show proper deference to a legislative authority. There will be time aplenty, later on, to argue the constitutionality of Congress' action. On matters of injunctive relief, though, Congress is assumed to have acted constitutionally. Therefore, the 11th Circuit erred. The logic cannot be obviated: A dead Schiavo means a moot case, and a moot case cannot be heard de novo. Therefore, for the time being, they must keep her alive. I am ticked off beyond belief about all this. The culture of death and the culture of judicial fiat continue to gain ground. Lord, forgive our sick society.

Questions
Some people, including even kids, are being arrested for attempting to deliver water to Terri Schiavo. On what basis are they being arrested?

I assume it's maybe trespass or something like that.

But what about Terri's parents? From what I understand, they have visitation rights to Terri -- why can't they bring her water? I have not read the Order of the judge, but the way it's been uniformly portrayed in the media is an order "to remove the feeding tube." The story thus far has been that the feeding tube is the only way of feeding her, and is what is keeping her alive.

But unless the order enjoins the Schindlers from giving their daughter water, on what basis could they be arrested if they did so?

Even more to the point, on what basis would the judge order them to not give her water? I guess the medical people would say that giving her food or water through her throat might kill her.

Yeah. And?

In this respect, the judge's order does seem to me cruel. Not only does Terri have to die, but she must starve to death.

If Terri's father shot and killed her, should he be arrested for murder? Why?

The Schindlers should give their daughter water. If she dies from it, maybe those so intent on seeing her die will be happy. And if she lives, that would give the lie to the whole argument that she is incapable of life.

Imagine -- if someone gives her water, and she can actually swallow it, what a mess that would be for those trying to kill her! Better to arrest those who try.

But unless the order enjoins the Schindlers from feeding their daughter, on what basis could they be arrested for bringing her water?

Schiavo cert. petition: You can read it here.

Update: You can read the Senate and House amicus briefs here, courtesy of The Armchair Imperialist.

Update II: According to Fox News, the Supreme Court has denied cert. and Gov. Jen Bush has filed for custody of Terri Schiavo.

Anthony Kennedy Could Decide Schiavo Case

No matter where you come down on the underlying issue, the title to this post has to scare you. Justice Kennedy is the liaison justice between the Supreme Court and the 11th Circuit. He could order the tube reinserted based on a petition from the parents, but his decision is subject to review by the full Court.

I'm sure he's already boning up on the foreign law of statutory construction, preliminary injunctions, and maybe even federalism. Makes me feel better to know he is on the job.

Schiavo Case Stirs Blog Storm: Fox News has this report.

Words of wisdom, from PJPII:

I feel the duty to reaffirm strongly that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a "vegetable" or an "animal".

Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a "vegetative state" retain their human dignity in all its fullness. The loving gaze of God the Father continues to fall upon them, acknowledging them as his sons and daughters, especially in need of help.

. . . .

The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.

The obligation to provide the "normal care due to the sick in such cases" includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration. The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.

In this regard, I recall what I wrote in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, making it clear that "by euthanasia in the true and proper sense must be understood an action or omission which by its very nature and intention brings about death, with the purpose of eliminating all pain"; such an act is always "a serious violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person"

. . . .

Considerations about the "quality of life", often actually dictated by psychological, social and economic pressures, cannot take precedence over general principles.

First of all, no evaluation of costs can outweigh the value of the fundamental good which we are trying to protect, that of human life. Moreover, to admit that decisions regarding man's life can be based on the external acknowledgment of its quality, is the same as acknowledging that increasing and decreasing levels of quality of life, and therefore of human dignity, can be attributed from an external perspective to any subject, thus introducing into social relations a discriminatory and eugenic principle.

Moreover, it is not possible to rule out a priori that the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, as reported by authoritative studies, is the source of considerable suffering for the sick person, even if we can see only the reactions at the level of the autonomic nervous system or of gestures. Modern clinical neurophysiology and neuro-imaging techniques, in fact, seem to point to the lasting quality in these patients of elementary forms of communication and analysis of stimuli.

"Schiavo Case Highlights Catholic-Evangelical Alliance": An interesting piece by the NYT. Here's a taste:

The powerful outcry over Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose case has provoked a national debate over whether she should live or die, is a testament to the growing alliance of conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals who have found common cause in the "culture of life" agenda articulated by Pope John Paul II.

. . . .

The struggle is only the latest indication of a strengthening religious alliance between denominations that were once bitterly divided. Evangelical leaders say they frequently lean on Catholic intellectuals like Robert George at Princeton University and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the journal First Things, to help them frame political issues theologically.

An increasing number of Catholics hold crucial staff positions in some of the religious conservative groups that lobby Washington. And conservative Catholics and evangelicals meet weekly in Virginia with a broad array of right-leaning lobbyists.

"The idea of building a culture that values human life is a Catholic articulation, but it echoes in the hearts of many people, evangelicals and others," said William L. Saunders Jr., director of the Center for Human Life and Bioethics at the Family Research Council in Washington.

"It was articulated by John Paul II, who is a great hero to pro-life people, regardless of their church," said Mr. Saunders, who is among the Catholics working at an organization founded by or affiliated with evangelicals.

The "culture of life" language has been widely adopted by conservative politicians. President Bush said in a news conference yesterday that government must "err on the side of life" in making every effort to keep Ms. Schiavo alive.

The Catholics and evangelicals first joined forces in the anti-abortion movement. And their alliance has now extended to include promoting sexual abstinence education and opposing stem-cell research and euthanasia. It is an array of issues they link under the rubric of "respect for the sanctity of life," whether that life is an "unborn baby" or an unresponsive patient lying in a hospice bed.

Schiavo cert. petition has been filed according to K-Lo.

Update: Fox News now has this report on the filing, which includes the following excerpt:

In the emergency filing, Bob and Mary Schindler (search) say their 41-year-old daughter faces an unjust and imminent death based on a decision by her husband to remove a feeding tube without strong proof of her consent. They allege constitutional violations of due process and religious freedom.

The filing also argues Congress intended for Schiavo's tube to be reinserted, at least temporarily, when they passed an extraordinary bill last weekend that gave federal courts authority to fully review her case.

In its conclusion, the request suggests that the case has implications for the protection of the disadvantaged.

"It has taken our nation many years to make good on its commitment to equal justice for persons with profound, cognitive disabilities," the request reads. "Unless the state of Florida retains the power to protect the rights of its most vulnerable citizens ... the 14th Amendment's guarantees will apply only those who are capable of defending them on their own."

Adler on Pryor: I could not agree more with the following sentiments expressed by Professor Adler over at The Corner:

Yes, Judge Bill Pryor has very strong pro-life views. But, as I and many others argued in defense of his confirmation, he is also a firm believer that judges should apply the law, irrespective of their personal beliefs. That is what good judges are supposed to do. If Pryor felt the legal case for overturning the Florida state courts was weak, I have little doubt he would have voted accordingly, no matter how much he would regret the end result. That is how it should be, and it is one of the reasons why Bill Pryor merited his nomination and deserved confirmation in the Senate.

Humanitarian Workers at Risk, courtsey of the CFD:

Last week, the United Nations was forced to withdraw its staff from parts of western Sudan after the Janjaweed militia declared that it would begin targeting foreigners and U.N. humanitarian convoys.

Yesterday, a 26 year-old USAID worker was shot in the face when the clearly-marked humanitarian convoy she was traveling in was ambushed in broad daylight.

It is still unknown just who carried out this ambush, but Sudan expert Eric Reeves reported yesterday that he had "received from multiple, highly authoritative sources intelligence indicating that Khartoum has ambitious plans for accelerating the obstruction of humanitarian access by means of orchestrated violence and insecurity, including the use of targeted violence against humanitarian aid workers."

If such a plan is truly in the works, it will have dire consequences for the people of Darfur. Last year, Jan Egeland, the UN Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, warned that as many as 100,000 people could die in Darfur every month if those providing humanitarian assistance were forced to withdraw due to insecurity.

Save the Children has already lost 4 of its aid workers in the last year, yet they continue to provide medical care, food, water, shelter, and protection to more than 200,000 children and families in Darfur each month.