Whoever created this site is undoubtedly going straight to hell.

And I guess I am too, because God forgive me, I laughed -- hard.

Me too.

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice-president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. [emphasis added]

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Of course, the mainstream media did not consider these uncontroversial statements at all newsworthy.

Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Herald has learned.

Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, on Thursday that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.

For a brief period, local police, who have officers at the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called "a showdown."

In the end, the squad from the FDLE and the Department of Children & Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.

"We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in," said a source with the local police.

"The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene," said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. "When the sheriff's department and our department told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off."

. . . .

"It was kind of a showdown on the part of the locals and the state police," the official said. "It it was not too long after that Jeb Bush was on TV saying that, evidently, he doesn't have as much authority as people think." [Note: the "official" quoted here may a different person than that quoted in the previous paragraph I quoted.] [link via Talking Points Memo]

Meanwhile, assorted crazies are urging, or trying to effect themselves, the "rescue" of Terri Schiavo and/or the murder of Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. See here, here, here, and here. Not surprising when you have the likes of Tom DeLay calling the removal of Terri's feeding tube "murder" and "medical terrorism." Rethuglicans and cable television have been wildly irresponsible in whipping the Christian Right into a frenzy about this. (World O'Crap has complete coverage of Terri's enraged "supporters.")

Steve Gilliard notes:

That line from Red October is running through my head again:"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it."

Why? Because the Republicans are still counting fundie votes. They think they can control this, that nothing will happen and the base will be excited. But most of the base is revolted. They are horrified at the sanctimony and the increasing rhetoric from people who should know better. Ignore judges? Kidnap a dying woman? Are they kidding?

Why is this happening? Because they thought it would be a gimme. That the only people who would care is the radical right and their foot soldiers. They could get their way and trap the Dems in the process. But now, the Dems stepped out of the way and let the GOP take every bit of heat for this. You have the spectacle of Randall Terry, has-been, making demands on Jeb Bush, who meekly says "I can't go beyond my powers."

Bush and Bush seem to be puppets of the fringe elements, a group who would let their kids get arrested, which horrifies most people. All that political capital has been squandered, as Jim Wolcott said, on a Sunday flight from Crawford.

But Bush has never spread political risk. He has always heaped it on and expected to be rewarded in the end. There has never been a downside for this. But there is now. If Judge Greer or Michael Schiavo is harmed in any way, that turd is going to land right on the doors of the White House and Congress. They unleashed this madness and the idea that they could escape it is unlikely. [link via Daily Kos; typos corrected]

In a Polarizing Case, Jeb Bush Cements His Political Stature

 

WASHINGTON, March 24 - Gov. Jeb Bush's last-minute intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, even after the president had ended his own effort to keep her alive, may have so far failed in a legal sense, but it has cemented the religious and social conservative credentials of a man whose political pedigree is huge and whose political future remains a subject of intense speculation.

On one level, the Florida governor's emergence as the most prominent politician still fighting, despite a string of court and legislative defeats, to have a feeding tube reinserted in Ms. Schiavo was very much in keeping with someone who has repeatedly declared a deep religious faith.

Several associates noted that he had been devoutly religious longer than President Bush, and even critics said his efforts - prodding the Florida Legislature and the courts and defying much of the electorate - were rooted in a deep-seated opposition to abortion and euthanasia rather than in political positioning.

Yet inevitably, the events of recent days have fed the mystique of Mr. Bush as a reluctant inheritor of perhaps America's most famous dynasty since the Adams family two centuries ago.

James Wolcott's reaction:

"In a Polarizing Case, Jeb Bush Cements His Political Stature," reads the Times hed.

The headline could have read "blah blah blah Jeb Bush Raises His Political Visibility." That's neutral-sounding, accurate. But by using the statesmanlike word "stature," the hed makes it sound as if Jeb Bush is having a Profile in Courage crisis moment with the Terri Schiavo case (when, more likely, he and his brother have blundered through overpandering, but let that go for the moment).

Now, Nagourney isn't responsible for the headline, of course, but it's faithful to the awed gulp of his latest exhibition in political naivete.

He assures us that Jeb Bush's obtrusive meddling isn't rooted in political expedience or calculation but conviction and conscience.

"Several associates noted that he has been devoutly religious longer than President Bush, and even critics said his efforts--prodding the Florida Legislature and the courts and defying much of the electorate--were rooted in a deep-seated opposition to abortion and euthanasia rather than in political positioning."

Well, that's what "associates" are expected to say. Of course, those who are loyal to Jeb Bush are going to testify to his good faith, just as Andy Card et al tell us what a conscientious, thoughtful executive Dubya is. To say otherwise would be to risk banishment. As for the "critics" who amen those sentiments, who are they? Name one, Nagourney. Surely there must be at least ONE quotable "critic" of Jeb Bush in the entire state of Florida who thinks that he's riding the Schiavo story for political gain as far as it can carry him.

And it's really marvy how things turn out so neatly for Jeb. Nagourney first assures us Jeb isn't doing this for political advantage, then a graf or so later writes, "[The] governor now certainly has a place, if he wants it, as a prime contender in what is shaping up as a fight to represent a conservative wing that has proved increasingly dominant."

Only a NY Times reporter could be gullible enough to think that a career politician takes a stand without any thought of future advantage and just happens to receive political advantage anyway 'cause that's kinda how things work out. That a politican becomes "a prime contender" by accident or historical caprice. (It's opposing the religious right that would be the disadvantageous stance to take in the Rovian Republican Party, which every future Republican candidate damn well knows.)

Adam Nagourney really ought to be writing for Tiger Beat. Because only a groupie with a byline could write of Jeb Bush's posturing in the Schiavo story, "[The] events of recent days have fed the mystique of Mr Bush as a reluctant inheritor of perhaps America's most famous dynasty since the Adams family two centuries ago."

So much for the Kennedys, but more to the point only the most starry-eyed hack could use the word "mystique" about an uninspired lump of political dough like Jeb Bush, and describe him as "a reluctant inheritor," as if Jeb would really rather be in Taos fulfilling his dream of becoming a watercolorist. You don't become governor of Florida and rig things to help your brother become president because your soul is Hamlet-torn.

. . . .

Any blogger who uses the phrase "the liberal New York Times" without irony should be returned to the pet store as a dead parrot.

Heh. Indeed. The American public is bright enough to recognize the actions of Jeb, his big brother, the Bug Man and the rest as political pandering to the Religious Right. Nagourney and the Times aren't as perceptive.

UPDATE: Media Matters has more about the article:

The New York Times quoted University of South Florida professor Susan MacManus praising Bush without disclosing her ties to his administration. MacManus served on Bush's transition team on health care; was appointed by Bush to the Florida Elections Commission and served as an adviser to Bush as of August 2004.

The New York Times reported MacManus's assertion that Bush is "a very ideologically consistent person" who is "putting politics aside" in the Terri Schiavo case:

Susan McManus [sic], a political science professor at the University of South Florida, said: "He [Bush] is a very ideologically consistent person. He made no bones about that from the first day he ran for office. Those of us who watch him think this is Jeb, and how he truly believes and what he truly believes, and this may be one of those instances where he's putting politics aside."

LEAD STORY

Vivienne, an interactive companion accessible on powerful, "third-generation" cell phones, was recently introduced by the Hong Kong company Artificial Life as a high-maintenance, video-image "girlfriend" who goes on dates with you, kisses, speaks six languages, converses on 35,000 topics, accepts flowers and diamonds, and may even marry you (though you also acquire a troublesome mother-in-law). Vivienne so far is prudish (no nudity, no sex), owing to Artificial Life's aim at marketing in modest cultures, but she will appear in Europe and some U.S. cities by the end of this year (at about $6 a month plus airtime). Said one Hong Kong video game player, characterizing Vivienne for the New York Times, "It's a little bit for the losers." [New York Times, 2-24-04]

Names in the News

From the crime column of the Lewisville (Texas) Leader, Feb. 14: arrested on charges of drug possession, driving while intoxicated, and driving without a license: Mr. Fred Flintstone, 34. And taken into custody in February in Miami to begin serving a one-year sentence on alien-smuggling charges: a Chinese national whose given name is King Kong. And an obituary from the Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram, Dec. 2: Mr. Dom Perigion Champagne, whose parents were Mr. Jeron Champagne and Ms. Perfect Engelberger. [Lewisville Leader, 2-14-05] [Tampa Tribune, 2-6-05] [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 12-2-04]

. . . .

Finer Points of the Law

. . . .

Six years ago, during a brief affair in Chicago, Dr. Sharon Irons manually inseminated herself with sperm from Dr. Richard O. Phillips, following oral sex. The result was a daughter, now aged 5, for whom Phillips has reluctantly been paying $800 a month to support while his lawsuit against Irons for deception travels through Illinois courts. A trial judge had dismissed all of his claims, but in February, the Illinois Appeals Court granted a partial reversal, ordering a trial on whether she inflicted "emotional distress" by a legally "outrageous" act. However, the court dismissed Phillips' claim that Irons had "stolen" his sperm, stating that "it was a gift, an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee" and that, without a specific agreement to return it, it was hers to do with as she pleased. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette-AP, 2-24-05]

I read synopses of Illinois Appellate Court (misidentified as "Illinois Appeals Court" above) decisions every day. Hard to believe that I missed that one. It must have been an unpublished decision; unpublished decisions are not generally circulated.

I'm all for responsible lawmakers doing responsible things, but when Hillarycare went down the Republicans didn't say "okay, let's do something responsible now" - they kept beating it even after it was dead and then won a bunch of seats.

The Senate approved the measure on an unchallenged voice vote during a rare Palm Sunday session that came amid charges of cynical political maneuvering. Only three members were on the floor and the bill's prime sponsor, Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, served as presiding officer. [emphasis added; link via the rude pundit]

upyernoz, quoting tas, references Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, which provides:

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business . . . . [emphasis added]

The meaning of this is pretty self-evident. If explanation is needed, the Supreme Court provided it in an 1892 case:

The Constitution provides that "a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business." In other words, when a majority are present the house is in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single member or fraction of the majority present. All that the Constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.

United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1892) (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court further held in Ballin that each house has the power to enact rules to determine when a majority is present. 144 U.S. at 6. The relevant rule of the Senate is Standing Rule VI:

1. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. 2. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave. 3. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate. 4. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order. [emphasis added]

This rule does not authorize a gathering of three senators to decide that they are a "majority" of the Senate. To the contrary, the first clause, "[a] quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn," plainly requires fifty-one senators, not three, for a quorum. upyernoz notes the alternative:

of course, if it is valid, think of the fun we could have! if the president just gets a single senator and a single representative to sneak into the halls of congress in the dead of night, the three of them can unanimously pass any crazy thing they want!

There is also (at least) a third constitutional challenge to Terri's Law. It raises serious questions under the Tenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has often used in recent years (such as Printz v. United States (1997)) to strike down federal laws that impinge upon the authority of the states. The states have the authority to set up their own court systems, and try cases in those systems. Those decisions are reviewable in federal courts, but only to a limited degree -- e.g., the Supreme Court can overturn state-court decisions that violate the federal Constitution, and lower federal courts can order the release of a prisoner who is being held in violation of the Constitution. The federal government should not be able to overturn a state-court decision simply because it does not like the result. I do not think this basis for challenging the law is as clear-cut as the first two, however.

Terri's Law should thus be struck down as unconstitutional both because (1) Congress lacked the power to enact it, and (2) a quorum was not present in the Senate when the Senate purportedly passed it.

UPDATE:  Some of the commenters to upyernoz's post say that the Senate (unlike the House) doesn't bother determining if a quorum is present unless someone present raises the issue. Commenters Andew A. Gill and A_B refer to the reference section of the Senate's website, which defines "quorum":

The number of Senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer Senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call. [emphasis added]

I still fail to see how this practice can be squared with the constitutional requirement. If this is legit, I fully expect that "the Senate," comprised of Bill Frist, either by himself or accompanied by a buddy or two (as here), will be passing a lot more bills in the future. Who needs those pesky Democrats to gum up the works?

Partisans on the left and right have formed cottage industries devoted to discrediting what they dismissively call the "mainstream media" -- the networks, daily newspapers and newsmagazines. Their goal: to steer readers and viewers toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts. In an increasingly fragmented media world, ideologues have already devolved into parallel universes, in which liberals and conservatives can select talk radio hosts, cable news pundits and blogs that share their prejudices.

Brain scans show that parts of Schiavo's brain have atrophied and been replaced by spinal fluid. With such severe damage, Schiavo can't show the recovery that Scantlin has, said Dr. Michael Pulley, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville.

"Those types of changes don't reverse," Pulley said. "If you lose big pieces of brain, regardless of what it is - trauma, stroke, surgery - it doesn't come back." [link via World O'Crap]

Terri's husband, Michael, has testified that she told him, after they watched a movie about Karen Ann Quinlan, that she would not want to live in such a condition. For the past seven years, he has been fighting Terri's parents in court to have her feeding tube disconnected and allow her to die in peace. The courts have repeatedly agreed that that is what Terri would wish.

The case has been used as a political football, first by Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature:

In October 2003, after years of litigation, Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed, only to be reinserted six days later, after the Florida Legislature passed the law that gave Bush the power to intervene. Bush ordered the feeding tube reinserted.

The Florida Supreme Court later held that the law under which Bush acted was unconstitutional.

In recent days, George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans have seized upon the case as an opportunity to demonstrate their supposed "commitment to life." Dubya on Thursday issued this statement:

The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances 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. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities.

This is a meaningless statement. It's fine to have a "presumption in favor of life," but that presumption has been repeatedly rebutted:

Michael Schiavo contends his wife would not want to be kept alive artificially. . . .

. . . Over the years, courts have sided with [him] in more than a dozen cases.

On Friday, Congress took the bizarre step of subpoenaing Terri Schiavo to appear before it. The Florida trial judge nonetheless ordered her feeding tube removed "forthwith," and the Supreme Court of the United States refused to intervene.

Tom DeLay and other deeply concerned Congressmen were undeterred:

Already rebuffed by the highest federal and state courts, DeLay and other Republican members of Congress pushed ahead throughout the day and into the night with their legislative crusade on behalf of the severely brain-damaged Florida woman.

Their objective: Pass a bill that would cloak Schiavo — and only Schiavo — in some degree of federal protection and allow her parents to seek federal appeal of their legal setbacks in Florida courts.

"We are confident this compromise will restore nutrition and hydration to Mrs. Schiavo as long as that appeal endures," DeLay said. "Obviously, the judge will have to put the feeding tube back in or she could die before the case is heard."

The proposed legislation is an amazing abridgment of "state's rights," allegedly so dear to Republicans (at least when a state is itching to kill some black guy for a murder that he may not have committed). The bill would require the case to be litigated from the beginning in federal court, effectively wiping seven years of state-court litigation off the map. (link via Atrios)

Dubya, too, was concerned about Terri -- so concerned that he even cut short his latest vacation!

The president changed his schedule to return to Washington from his Texas ranch today to be on hand to sign the legislation.

Tom DeLay, often considered seriously ethically challenged, knows what's right and wrong in this case:

"Right now," Tom DeLay said on Friday, "murder is being committed against a defenseless American citizen in Florida. Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be immediately replaced, and Congress will continue working to explore ways to save her."

. . . . 

"Mrs. Schiavo's life is not slipping away - it is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism," DeLay said. "Mr. Schiavo's attorney's characterization of the premeditated starvation and dehydration of a helpless woman as 'her dying process' is as disturbing as it is unacceptable. What is happening to her is not compassion - it is homicide. She doesn't need to die, and as long as Terri Schiavo can breathe and her supporters can pray, we will not rest." [link via Digby]

Terri's father agrees:

"It’s judicial homicide. They want to murder her," Bob Schindler said at a right-to-life rally Monday in Washington.

To the right-to-lifers, the Schiavo case is a battle of good versus evil:

Today, the Schindlers are spending much of the afternoon with a crew from the Christian Broadcasting Network, operated by the evangelist Pat Robertson. There is no question which side the CBN is on. "There is a spiritual battle going on. There is a pro-death movement out there right now, and it nearly killed Terri," says reporter Wendy Griffith.

"From our perspective, it is a spiritual battle. It basically comes down to good and evil, life and death."

How seriously should we take the concern and outrage of Dubya, DeLay, Bob Schindler, and the right-to-lifers? Let's take them one at a time.

First, Dubya. In 1999, as governor of Texas, Bush