Tom DeLay has crossed the line by talking about the possibility of impeaching judges who ruled against Terri Schiavo’s parents.

Congressman DeLay and others argue that the federal courts simply ignored Congress’s intent that there be a new evidentiary hearing. But after reading the numerous opinions issued in this case, my view is that this argument doesn’t fly. The law required the federal courts to determine whether Terri Schiavo had been deprived of any federal rights. Absent the violation of a federal right, the law didn’t require the federal courts to re-determine whether Florida had properly applied state law in adjudicating the Schiavo dispute.

DeLay and other appear to argue that the clear intent of the law was that the courts determine the entire case anew. But that wasn’t what the law said. Courts discern intent primarily from the plain language of the statute that is passed — and the plain language of this statute required a violation of Terri Schiavo’s federal rights before the federal courts could take any action.

I have argued (in the postscript to this post) that the limited nature of the law is what made it appropriate and constitutional. I would have had a very different opinion if I thought the law passed by Congress had required the federal courts to simply second-guess the Florida courts’ application of state law issues. But the law didn’t do that. Terri Schiavo’s federal rights were the only thing the federal courts were authorized to consider. Nothing more.

And the federal courts did exactly that, ruling that Schiavo’s federal rights were not violated.

These federal judges were not entitled to read the law in a manner different than it was written. Nor were they authorized to start making up Constitutional rights that don’t exist. As conservatives, we don’t want our judges to engage in that sort of behavior.

This doesn’t mean that I am comfortable with the federal courts’ decision in every respect. I had two specific and related problems with the way that the courts ruled: 1) the case was decided with an unseemly haste that would never pass muster in a death penalty appeal; and 2) I thought Judge Tjoflat (the dissenting judge in the denial of en banc review) articulated a plausible potential federal constitutional law violation: the failure of the state courts to properly apply a “clear and convincing” standard — a standard that may arguably be required under the federal Constitution.

But, ultimately, this is an argument that might well be a loser. The existence of the argument provides no support for the view that the federal courts’ decisions were so outrageous that the judges deserve to be impeached.

I had many problems with the way that the Schiavo case was decided in the Florida courts. I have articulated some specific problems with the judge’s factfinding. But ultimately, my problem is one of process: I simply don’t think that a life-or-death decision should be made by a single probate judge according to a “clear and convincing” standard. It should be made by a jury according to a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard — at least in the absence of a prior written directive, or agreement among the patient’s close family members concerning the patient’s wishes. The specific problems with the Florida courts’ handling of the case, to me, simply point up the need for these stricter procedures.

But my suggestions, while I think they are good ones, are apparently not required by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. And it is a painful truth, though one not widely understood, that not every good idea is constitutionally required.

What happened to Terri Schiavo today was wrong. The process for deciding cases like hers is flawed. So let’s work to pass a good law in this area that can benefit future people in Terri Schiavo’s position. But let’s shelve the talk about impeaching judges. That’s pure political opportunism. If Tom DeLay had any valid argument that he had acted on principle, that argument is now dead.

P.S. Not that I am surprised. I said previously that I don’t like DeLay — even as I defended him against the outrageous decision by the L.A. Times to print a front-page story about the death of DeLay’s father.

A correction in today’s L.A. Times:

Cal State Chico — An article in Tuesday’s California section about hazing at Cal State Chico mistakenly said that a pledge to a fraternity at nearby Butte Community College died of alcohol poisoning. He did not die but was hospitalized. The article also said Chico has a population of 35,000; according to the city, the population is 71,317. In addition, University President Paul Zingg was quoted saying the school would shut down its Greek system if problems with hazing did not abate. Zingg made his comments to a group of 850 students and others, and his remarks were quoted in the local media. He did not speak with The Times. Also, although the article characterized the school as being well-known for its basketball program, its winning baseball program may be best known outside campus.

Imagine how many mistakes there would have been if the article hadn’t been reviewed by experienced Times editors.

Terri Schiavo has died.

The controversy over her death will no doubt live on.

May she rest in peace.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the LAPD is loosening restrictions on its officers’ ability to contact federal immigration officials, when officers suspect that felons have also committed immigration violations. This is a welcome move, which should empower LAPD to take more aggressive measures towards criminal street gangs filled with illegal immigrants.

(more…)

As I noted the other day, the L.A. Times’s David Shaw recently had a silly article about bloggers. In that piece, he said:

When I or virtually any other mainstream journalist writes something, it goes through several filters before the reader sees it. At least four experienced Times editors will have examined this column, for example. They will have checked it for accuracy, fairness, grammar, taste and libel, among other things.

Remember that quote. I’ll probably be alluding to it several times throughout the course of this year.

In an unrelated point, I was perusing the corrections today when I noticed this gem:

Restaurant review — In last week’s Food section, the restaurant review listed Covina as an example of towns that are not in the San Gabriel Valley. Covina is in the San Gabriel Valley.

See, I’m just a blogger, but I could give you a million examples of towns that are not in the San Gabriel Valley — and I’d get them all right. Watch, as I list just five of them: San Francisco. Modesto. Sacramento. Eureka. San Diego.

I just did that without the benefit of four experienced Times editors. Impressed?

Instapundit says of the Schiavo case:

[T]his is one of those episodes that seems to bring out the worst in people. That’s why I didn’t really want to weigh in to begin with — I knew that I was unlikely to persuade anyone, because very few people seem to care about the facts, or about arguments.

(My emphasis.)

It does not seem to me a stretch to interpret this as saying: Those who disagree with me don’t care about the facts or rational argument.

I hope (and assume) that’s not what Glenn meant. After all, some of us do care about the facts and valid argumentation — we just disagree with Glenn on this issue.

UPDATE: Glenn e-mails to say that’s not what he meant. But it sounds like he is taking a lot of nasty abuse on this issue, which is unfortunate. I know full well that people on the right can be as nasty as those on the left when you disagree with them about an emotional issue.

UPDATE x2: Glenn has updated his post to clarify. He also gives an example of the sort of e-mail he has been getting. Some people have e-mailed him to say they hope that his wife suffers Terri Schiavo’s fate. Disgusting. It just goes to show you that there are totally classless people on both sides of the aisle.