Thursday, March 31, 2005

Terri Schiavo - A Retrospective

Terri Schiavo died this morning. May she rest in peace.

Terri's parents, the Schlindlers, had been at her side as she lay dying until Terri's husband, Michael, arrived. Michael, so concerned to carry out Terri's wishes, arrived at Terri's bedside 5 minutes before her death and refused to let the Schindlers stay. Michael is a selfish, cold, and callous individual.

Terri's story began in 1990 when she collapsed from a potassium imbalance. Michael sued her doctor and in 1992 or 1993 won $300,000 for himself (loss of consortium with his wife) and $750,000 for Terri's care. In the course of the malpractice trial, Michael testified that he wanted to care for Terri forever, which in hindsight appears at best to be less than the whole truth. Of necessity, Michael would have had to obtain testimony from an expert witness about the expected length of Terri's life and the cost of Terri's care for that length of time. There apparently was no testimony that Terri wished to die in her condition and that Michael would carry out those wishes. Undoubtedly, such testimony would have significantly reduced the amount of the jury's verdict.

After Terri's collapse, Michael told the Schlinders that he did not see how he could go to nursing school and still pay his bills. The Schlindlers volunteered to take Michael into their home, rent free. Michael, concerned as always for others, never offered to pay the Schlindlers even after he won his $300,000.

Soon after winning the malpractice case, Michael's attitude toward Terri changed. He told the Schlindlers that he wanted to stop Terri's care because her condition was hopeless. Her condition had not changed.

In 1996 or 1997, Michael went to court to enforce "Terri's wish" to die. For the first time, Michael announces that Terri had told him of her wish to die in her condition. He, his brother, and his sister-in-law testified that Terri had expressed her wish to die in her condition after a TV movie and after a funeral. The judge gave great weight to this testimony even though Michael stood to inherit about $700,000, his testimony in the malpractice case seemed to conflict, and Terri's guardian ad litem had recommended that Michael's testimony was unconvincing in light of his conflicts.

The judge correctly stated the law that the court should err on the side of life and that Terri's wish to die must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Then, the judge essentially ignored the very law he cited and ruled that Terri had expressed her wish to die in her condition. Other than the judge, who truly believes Michael's testimony? The judge's flawed finding of fact decided Terri's fate.

The Schlindlers appealed and separately challenged Michael's status as guardian. All their appeals and challenges failed. In regard to Michael as guardian, the same trial judge had to overlook that Michael was living with another woman, had two children by her, and was engaged to marry her once Terri died. In other words, was Michael truly putting Terri's welfare first?

The State of Florida tried to intervene, but the state courts ruled the special statute, named Terri's Law, was unconstitutional. The U.S. also tried to intervene, but its special law did not require the restoration of Terri's feeding tube. It is said that hard cases make bad law, and that appears true in this case. It would have been better if the U.S. Congress had not felt a strong need to intervene in this one state case in order to prevent an injustice.

Terri's case is an example of a bad result in court. Bad results occur every day. Nonetheless, at some point, our judicial system demands finality. The courts would grind to a halt if every result were subject to endless review. The Terri Schiavo case received much more review than the typical case ever would. The Schindlers were given every opportunity to make their case. Other than the trial court judge, all the judges carefully considered the law and the findings of fact. The appellate judges were not free to change the trial judge's findings of fact.

In the final analysis, the trial judge should feel shame for his failure to weigh the testimony accurately and to apply the law correctly. The judge simply did not give sufficient weight to Michael's change of position after receiving the malpractice money, the conflicts with the evidence in the malpractice case, Michael's potential inheritance when Terri died, and the timing of Michael's recollection of Terri's wishes. I do hope the people of Florida will find a better judge when they next get the opportunity.

As for Michael and the Schindlers, both sides will probably get book deals and make out well fiancially. Michael's motives in pushing for Terri's death remain a mystery. His actions simply do not add up.

As for society, we need to consider how to handle similar cases in the future. I would prefer in cases like this one to have either a second de novo review of the evidence, a 3-judge trial panel, or a jury before deciding a person's condition and wishes. The state legislatures should set higher standards for clear and convincing evidence of a person's oral wish to die. Parents should be given greater rights at the very least to visit their child. With these safeguards, we will hopefully prevent another Terri Schiavo case.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Campaign Finance Law and Blogs

Ryan Segar of the New York Post has a good article on the expansion of the McCain-Feingold regulations to restrict free polical speech by bloggers. (Hat tip to the Corner.)

McCain-Feingold supporters claim they only want to rid politics of the influence from moneyed interests. So far, McCain-Feingold has been more successful in restricting political speech than in eliminating or even reducing the influence of money in politics. The 2004 election showed that money will find a way to influence elections.

Now, the campaign finance reformers are aiming at grass-roots political speech by bloggers. The reformers' real target is the First Amendment, which prohibits government from restricting the right of free speech.

Congress, you have created a monster!

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

How Does CBS Know?

Terri Schiavo is still alive, but CBS has already written her obituary. That is not unusual when a newsworthy person is known to be near death. Writing the obit in advance gives the news organization a better chance to be the first to put the story out.

According to the Glen Beck radio show, CBS accidentaly posted Terri's obit on its web site last night, and the obit includes a line that Michael Schiavo was at Terri's side when she died. Since Terri has not died yet, how does CBS know who will be at her side when she dies? CBS's bias and fact-checking problem is showing again.

Monday, March 28, 2005

Will Sen. Salazar Keep His Word?

Last year while locked in a tight race in Colorado, Ken Salazar said he would support having a vote on Pres. Bush's judicial nominees. Now that Mr. Salazar is a U.S. senator, the story is changing. As Betsy Newmark of Betsy's Page says, "How soon they flip once they get elected."

Now, the Senator's staff is not sure exactly what he said last fall during the campaign. Sen. Salazar may wish to consult former Pres. Clinton, who famously answered a question by saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." That kind of logic is what Sen. Salazar needs so that he can wiggle out of his campaign position.

Or maybe Sen. Salazar can consult Sen. Landrieu of Louisiana. Landrieu made a similar pledge, in her case to vote for a particular controversial nominee. Once in Washington, she changed her mind and explained that she had learned new information. Sen. Landrieu's trick may be another one that Sen. Salazar wants to learn.

Why do politicians feel so free to ignore what they said they would do? I hope that the voters of Colorado remember in 2010 what little regard Sen. Slaazar has for his campaign promises.

When Sen. Landrieu and Sen. Salazar are up for reelection, remind the voters of Louisiana and Colorado respectively how they do not keep their word.

Oil for Food Program - Whose Money Is It?

Do you remember the U.N.'s corrupt Oil for Food Program? Do you think the money, which was intended to benefit the people of Iraq, should be controlled by the same U.N. bureaucracy as before the liberation of Iraq's people? Well, you are in for a surprise, and the U.N.'s spending decisions amaze even me.

The U.N. still controls the money from the Oil for Food Program despite Iraq's request for return of the money. The U.N. apparently told the corrupt administrator of the program that the Oil for Food funds would be used to pay his attorney's fees. Imagine the pure gall! First, the administrator steals from the people of Iraq, and then the U.N. wants to pay his attorney's fees with the remaining money that he did not steal. As GeoPoliticalReview suggests, this is like having the victim's family pay for the murderer's defense attorney.

The U.N. has no reason to keep control of the money. At the very least, none of the money should be spent without the express authorization of the Iraqi government.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Texas Justice - Democrat Style

Tom DeLay has been in the news for awhile for possible campaign finance and ethics violations. Because Austin, the state capital of Texas, is located in Travis County, the District Attorney there has the power to prosecute certain state crimes. Travis County is a government and university town and votes heavily Democrat. As you might expect, the DA of Travis County is a Democrat, Ronnie Earle. Earle has been investigating the accusations against DeLay.

To give you some perspective, let's go back several years. Earle made several charges against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican. Hutchison's supporters claimed the charges were baseless and politically motivated. Some people suggested that Gov. Ann Richards, a Democrat, could just as easily be charged with similar offenses.

When the day of trial came, the D.A. asked for a continuance, arguing that his long investigation had not been long enough to prepare for trial. The judge denied the request and told the prosecutor to open his case. The prosecutor sat on his hands and did nothing--no opening statement, no witnesses, nothing. The judge dismissed the case.

In other words, when it came time to put up or shut up, D.A. Earle was ashamed to show his evidence. Rather than expose the weakness of his case, Earle embarrassed himself and Travis County. No matter. The Travis County voters have re-elected their hero in every election.

Think about that when you hear that Earle may bring charges against DeLay.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Terri Schiavo - The End Is Near

The Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the federal district judge's decision not to restore Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. The legal issues are complicated in some ways, but in a nutshell the courts do not think Terri's parents will prevail in showing that Terri has been deprived of a federal constitutional or other legal right. The federal district judge and the Eleventh Circuit do not find that the law permits them to go beyond the issue of whether Terri's federally guaranteed rights have been denied. It is hard to disagree with the decision unless one considers anew the fact issues concerning Terri's condition and wishes.

As I have written before, Terri's fate was almost sealed when the state court trial judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and she wished to die if she were in that condition. The Florida appellate court confirmed that there was enough evidence to justify the trial judge's findings. Appellate courts are reluctant for good reason to retry cases decided by trial courts. Some flaw can always be found, but the judicial system needs finality. In Terri's case, finality seems near.

The Florida Senate also voted against another law to save Terri's life. All attempts to save Terri's life through legislation appear doomed.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Death Penalty and Murders at Minnesota School

Has anyone else noticed that the young murderer, who committed suicide, would not have been subject to the death penalty? After all, he was too young to appreciate the wrongfulness of his murder spree. Or perhaps he did. Could that be why he inflicted the death penalty on himself?

Maybe, just maybe, as a result of this outrage, we can sense standards of decency evolving in favor of the death penalty for minors like this one? Do you feel the evolution, Justice Kennedy?

Judge Denies Restoration of Feeding Tube

This morning, Judge Whittemore issued his opinion on the petition by Terri Schiavo's parents to restore her feeding tube. The judge declined to address the constitutionality of the recent federal legislation giving the parents this opportunity to save Teri's life and assumed for now that the law is constitutional. However,the judge treated the case as a request for a temporary restraining order and denied the parents' request to restore the feeding tube on the ground that the parents were not likely to prevail on the merits.

The new statute requires a de novo review (i.e., not accepting the prior state court decisions). Perhaps the Eleventh Circuit, which will hear the appeal, will find that a de novo review in this unusual case requires a stay of the Florida court's ordr to remove Terri's feeding tube in order to have time for a consideration of all the evidence and a determination of the law. Unfortunately, I fear that Terri's parents' efforts at the federal level will all be for naught.

Monday, March 21, 2005

Federal Judge Takes His Time

Judge Whittemore heard arguments in the Terri Schiavo case this afternoon but declined to rule or to set a time for a ruling. The judge wants first to address the issue of the constitutionality of the new legislation before proceeding and has asked the parents' lawyer to respond as quickly as possible to the ACLU brief on the issue. This gives the responding lawyer precious little time for painstaking work that normally consumes a lot of time. For some good insight into several of the constitutional issues, read this with all the comments.

If the judge will not thoroughly review the facts de novo (i.e., do not consider the state court's findings), the whole exercise will fail to address the root problem of a lack of confidence in the process to date.

Bush's Recess Appointment Stands

Last year while the Senate was recessed, Pres. Bush appointed William Pryor to serve as a judge on the Eleventh Circuit. The appointment was challenged. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the recess appointment, and the Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal. (Hat tip to Betsy's Page.)

Pryor's recess appointment will expire at the end of this Senate session. Pres. Bush has nominated for a permanent appointment, but the Democrats are planning to filibuster his nomination again.

Terry Schiavo - Federal Court Review

The federal government has enacted a law (see text here) to give Terri Schiavo's parents one last chance to show that Terri's feeding tube should be permanently restored. The new law applies solely to Terri.

It seems to me that the primary purpose of the law is to ensure a thorough review of Terri's case. That purpose will only be served if the federal court is able to review all the facts in the case, and that will take time, which Terri has precious little of. I hope that the federal judge today will issue a temporary stay at the very least so that the case can be reviewed properly.

Ascertaining the facts seems paramount to me. Decide once and for all what Terri's condition is and what her wishes would be.

I have learned through The Corner that Terri's guardian ad litem (GAL) in the initial trial recommended that there was not clear and convincing evidence of Terri's wish to die because the testimony of Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband was subject to financial conflict. When the GAL made his report, Michael immediately claimed that the GAL was biased. The trial judge dismissed the GAL and surprisingly did not appoint another one for Terri. Since then, the trial judge has consistently favored Michael over Terri's parents. Most importantly, the trial judge ruled directly contrary to the GAL's recommendation and found clear and convincing evidence of Terri's wish to die. You can read all this and more about Terri's case in the final report of the GAL appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush.

Conflicting stories are swirling over the air waves and the internet. Now, a federal judge brings fresh eyes to view Terri's case. Hopefully, the federal judge will not be bogged down in too many constitutional issues and will ensure a thorough review of the essential facts regarding Terri's condition and wishes.

I hold little hope that the federal judge will reach a different conclusion about Terri's condition, although there are many stories flying around that suggest otherwise. I do expect that a thorough review of the facts surrounding Terri's wishes will bring into focus the reasons that caused Terri's first GAL to discount Michael Schiavo's testimony.

Until all the evidence is in front of us, it is premature to predict the outcome. The American public should consider all the evidence before deciding on Terri's condition and wishes. The federal judge certainly is aware of the widespread concern about the handling of Terri's case to date. Above all, the judge must aim to have all the facts in the public domain so that the public can be assured that the outcome, whatever it is, rests on a thorough and honest evaluation of all the facts.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Terri Schiavo - What Next?

The U.S. House of Representatives will soon pass a bill to save Terri Schiavo's life, at least for now. The Senate has already passed the bill, which the President will sign as soon as he receives it. Word will immediately be sent to restore Terri's feeding tube. It appears the emergency is over.

What happens next? Terri's fate will rest with a federal trial judge. The judge will hold a hearing to determine whether the State of Florida can order, in effect, Terri's death.

The state judge in Terri's case followed a state statute in issuing his order to remove Terri's feeding tube. Unlike many death penalty cases reviewed by the federal courts, the state law is not likely to be seriously challenged. The state law almost certainly complies with federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

To determine whether Florida may proceed to carry out the state judge's order, the federal court must necessarily review the 2 crucial issues: Terri's condition and Terri's wishes. In the original trial, the state judge found by clear and convincing evidence, and the Florida court of appeals agreed, that (1) Terri was in a persistent vegetative state, which was a terminal condition from which there was no hope of recovery and that would lead to Terri's death, and (2) Terri's wish was that she would not want to live in such a condition. If the state judge's initial fact findings stand after federal court review, Florida may proceed to carry out the state judge's order.

Terri's condition has been much discussed. Terri's parents and their lawyer believe that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state and in fact responds to them. Some believe that Terri herself on Friday tried to say that she wanted to live. Having read the Florida appellate court decisions, I reluctantly expect that Terri's condition will be confirmed to be a terminal condition. Nevertheless, the federal court will hear all the evidence on Terri's condition and may decide differently.

Terri's wishes have also been much discussed. (It is important to note that the wishes that matter are Terri's, not her husband's and not her parents'.) The state trial judge's finding of Terri's wish to die was based on the testimony of 3 witnesses: her husband Michael, his brother, and Michael's brother's wife. Since the trial, Michael's motives and credibility have been questioned. At the very least, this federal court hearing will embarrass Michael, if he can feel embarrassment, and should embarrass the ACLU. After all, the ACLU's fight supposedly for Terri's right to die should be premised at the very least on her wish to die and not on Michael's wish for her to die.

Remember that the finding of Terri's wish to die had to be supported by clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard than the usual civil-case standard of a preponderance of the evidence. It has always seemed surprising to me that the trial judge based his decision on the testimony of 3 witnesses, one of whom stands to profit financially and the other 2 of whom are related to the first one. Michael also had to testify in an earlier medical malpractice case that Terri would live a long time and would receive care for the rest of her natural life. He would have received far less money in that malpractice case if he had testified that he would seek to remove her feeding tube as soon as he received the money. The credibility issues, if raised at the first state trial, should have made Michael's testimony seem conflicting, motivated by money, and generally not credible. Without credible testimony from Michael, the state trial judge's finding by clear and convincing evidence of Terri's wish to die defies common sense.

The federal court review will no doubt receive extensive press coverage. In such a fish bowl atmosphere, the federal judge is likely to be very careful to reach a decision that can be supported in the court of public opinion. That does not mean that Terri's death sentence will be permanently lifted. The federal judge, like all the Florida appellate judges, may still confirm the state trial judge's findings and conclusions. In that case, the State of Florida will proceed to remove Terri's feeding tube.

Whatever happens, all the evidence will be aired and considered. The federal court may decide that Terri does not wish to die, or at least there is not enough evidence to support that. However, if Terri's condition is a terminal condition and if Terri did wish to die, then we should honor her wish.

Visit Betsy's Page

Check out Betsy's Page. The proprietor, Betsy Newmark, always has interesting and insightful comments, and she catches many important observations on the web for you to link to. The site is a valuable addition to your bookmarks if you do not have it already.

Friday, March 18, 2005

Terri Schiavo - Why Is She Where She Is?

Terri Schiavo is in her present position (feeding tube removed earlier today) as a result of many court decisions. To understand why the courts have put Terri in her current situation, I reviewed the approximately 17 published Florida appellate court decisions. The primary legal issues are: (1) Does Terri have a "terminal condition" (a condition from which she will not recover and that will cause her death)? (2) If Terri is in a terminal condition, what would be Terri's wish (life or death) for herself in this condition? If the answers are "yes" and "death", Florida law requires that her wish for death be granted.

After winning a malpractice case and receiving over $1 million, including $750,000 to care for Terri for the rest of her life, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and her parents, Mr. and Ms. Schindler, disagreed about whether to remove Terri's feeding tube, an action that would lead to Terri's death.

Because of the disagreement, Michael Schiavo went to court to have a judge decide what Terri would have wanted. Michael Schiavo and some others testified that Terri would not want to live in her condition. The medical evidence showed that Terri had suffered severe brain damage and would never recover.

The judge made findings of fact that, based on clear and convincing evidence (a standard higher than preponderance of the evidence but less than beyond a reasonable doubt), Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and would not want to continue to live this way. These findings virtually sealed Terri's fate.

The Schindlers failed to challenge the trial court's ruling within the one year normally allowed. Nevertheless, Florida's Second District Court of Appeals in 3 decisions gave the Schindlers every opportunity to make a challenge. The Schindlers still lost on every point. Whatever chance the Schindlers might have had to extend Teri's life to its natural end was almost completely extinguished, though they continued the fight with admirable determination.

The 3 decisions to this point are written well and sensitively. They are thorough in the discussions of the law and the facts, with one exception. The essential finding that clear and convincing evidence showed that Teri had orally conveyed her desire not to live in a permanent vegetative state was not challenged. The contradiction between the malpractice trial evidence necessary to support a larger monetary award (longer life) and this trial to remove Terri's feeding tube (end her life sooner) is not mentioned. The fact that Mr. Schiavo remains married to Terri while living with, having children with, and intending to marry another woman does not come up. These issues should have been raised forcefully at trial but apparently were not. Without some evidence to cast into doubt the testimony of Mr. Schiavo and his friends, the trial judge is almost compelled to find that Terri did discuss her wishes with them and would not want to live in a persistent vegetative state.

At a later stage of the case, the Schindlers are given another chance to show that Terri has some hope of recovery, but they are not successful. They find two medical experts who are hopeful but equivocal about Terri's prospects of recovery. Michael Schiavo's two medical experts and a third, neutral medical expert named by the judge conclude that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state and that this state is a terminal condition. That is, she will never recover and will eventually die as a result of her condition. The testimony of the neutral medical expert is the most persuasive, and the evidence cited by the court of appeals makes it difficult to disagree. All hope that the Schindlers by themselves can stop the wheels of justice is gone.

The State of Florida jumped into the fray and passed a law enabling Governor Jeb Bush to stay the court's order to remove Terri's feeding tube. However, the law had several flaws, and every judge (at least 11) ruled the law unconstitutional (Florida constitution) on 2 separate grounds. (One very obvious flaw is that the law applied solely to Terri.) These decisions on the statute do become political, but the statute's flaws are apparent to every judge in the case. You can debate this issue if you want, but you face an uphill battle all the way.

Terri's fate was sealed at an early stage of this long trail of litigation. At the initial trial, the judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state, which was a terminal condition, and that Terri would wish to die rather than to live in that condition. The court of appeals agreed that the trial judge had sufficient evidence on which to base his decision, which suggests that the evidence was not close to 50/50.

The troubling part of this judicial process is the apparent weakness to me of the evidence that Terri would wish to die rather than to live in her current condition. The only evidence is the testimony of Michael Schiavo and friends of what Terri said. His credibility and motivations are a serious issue. How can you reconcile the malpractice evidence and verdict (longer life, more money for Terri's care) with the evidence that Terri would not wish to live in her current condition? Was there perjury or concealment of evidence? Michael Schiavo remains married to Terri, but he lives with another woman, has 2 children by her, and intends to marry her. Does he remain legally married to Terri because he will inherit her trust fund when she dies? Michael Schiavo has obviously moved on with his life. Why does he push so hard to remove Terri's feeding tube? His actions do not make sense to me.

I would feel better if another judge or a jury heard all the evidence and reached the same conclusions as the first judge did. That will take an act of Congress. Congress should act immediately to assure that there is indeed clear and convincing evidence that (1) Terri has a terminal condition and (2) she expressed a genuine and seriously considered wish to die rather than to live in her current condition.

What the Constitution Requires for Judicial Appointments

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the requirements for appointing federal judges. "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ... ." This provision also applies to judges of lower courts.

First off, the text makes clear that the President alone has the power of nomination. The placement of the "advice and consent" clause after the word "and" shows the intention of the framers that the clause modifies only the following verb "appoint" and does not modify "nominate". A reading of the plain language of the text reaches the same conclusion for the same reason. Consequently, despite what some Democrat senators contend, the President need not seek anyone else's advice or consent in determining or making judicial nominations.

Before appointing a judge, the President must obtain the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate gives its advice, in effect, while weighing the merits of giving its consent to the nomination.

The Senate's consent requires only a majority vote. The preceding language in Section 2 expressly requires a super majority of two-thirds for Senate consent to a treaty. The absence of any super-majority requirement for Senate consent to appointments shows that a simple majority of the Senate is sufficient.

Democrat senators today argue that they have a right under the Senate's rules of procedure to block a nomination with a filibuster, which requires a 60% majority to cut off debate. Filibusters are not addressed by the Constitution, but Article I, Section 5 allows the Senate to make its rules of procedure. Permitting the Senate through its procedural rules to override the Constitution's requirements seems to conflict with the concept of the Constitution as the law of the land and with the Constitution's requirements for amendments.

As a practical matter, this conflict will be subject only to the Senate's own sense of what it should do. The Senate is likely to be the final arbiter of its rules and rule changes, and the courts will not likely step into an inherently political arena to try to tell the Senate how to conduct its business. As a result, whatever the Senate does regarding its rules for debate on judicial nominations, will probably be conclusive. The inherent political nature of the Senate debate process and the Constitution's grant of power to the Senate to make its rules makes it highly unlikely that any court will enter the controversy, except possibly to bless whatever the Senate does.

No court can force the Senate to take a vote. No court is likely to try to tell the Senate how to interpret its rules or how to conduct its business. Thus, the Senate, and the Senate alone, will determine whether it may by a procedural rule require a super majority to end debate on a judicial nomination. In effect, the Senate will decide whether it may require a super majority to consent to a nomination. However, once the Senate votes on the nomination itself (versus a vote on ending debate), the courts may be in a position to determine whether the Senate did give consent.

The above discussion is a brief overview. Each small piece of the issue may be discussed endlessly. In a nutshell, the Constitution requires for a judicial appointment that: (1) The President must nominate a person to sit on the federal bench; and (2) the Senate, acting in accordance with whatever it decides its rules are, must consent by majority vote to the appointment of the nominee.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

PC Police Attack St. Patrick's Day

The ever vigilant and intolerant PC police have decided that St. Patrick's Day is not politically correct. Naming a day after a Christian saint will not do. Instead, today should be referred to as Shamrock Day. According to a local Houston radio show, Wal-Mart and maybe other retailers have items on their shelves with the more politically correct reference. I suspect (and hope) that this effort by the PC crowd will not go very far.

What's next for the PC police? St. Valentine's Day? Easter?

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Hello World!

Hello everyone. Welcome to Quite Right. QR offers a conservative perspective on American politics and all that relates to it. We hope you enjoy your visit to QR and find the posts enlightening, thought provoking, and informative. QR welcomes and encourages your comments on the issues discussed in our posts.