by JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:54 P.M. EST

Starting Anew?
We erred yesterday when we said Congress had ordered the reconnection of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. In fact, Congress only authorized a review of her case in federal court; the decision to prevent Mrs. Schiavo's starvation was up to a federal judge. And in the event, the judge assigned to the case, James Wittemore, refused to do so, in a decision (link in PDF) issued before 6:30 this morning. In another example of the uselessness of the U.N., the order to continue Mrs. Schiavo's dehydration came on World Water Day.

What seems to have happened is that Congress wrote the law hastily and failed to make its intentions clear. As Andrew McCarthy explains in National Review Online, at issue is the law's stipulation that "the [federal] District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings." As McCarthy explains (emphasis his):

There are at least two ways to read this law. The first--and the one that I believe the plain language indicates Congress intended--is that there should be a complete, plenary, exhaustive review on a clean slate--ignoring all prior rulings and factual determinations made by the courts of Florida. This is not a limitless grant of authority. . . .

Then there is a narrower construction which reverses priorities. The federal judge arguably could start from the premise that he was very constricted in what he could do by the limits of established federal law, including most significantly, the various aspects of the right to due process. He could then conduct a review only of the procedures of Florida law applied in Terri's case (rather than the underlying factual determinations generated by those procedures) in order to assess whether those procedures as structured (rather than as carried out in this case) satisfied minimal federal due process requirements. If he found that they did, he could rule that Terri's parents would not be able to show a violation of a federal right, without ever getting into the soundness of the factual findings actually made in Florida (viz., PVS and Terri's purported expression of an informed desire to die).

Mrs. Schiavo's parents have appealed Wittemore's decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where their best hope for success will likely lie in arguing that Wittemore interpreted his mandate under the statute too narrowly.

Michael Schiavo's Second Thoughts
If the federal courts do decide to look anew at the facts of the Terri Schiavo case, one of the central issues will be the credibility of husband Michael Schiavo's claim that she made clear she would want to die under the circumstances. Last night Mr. Schiavo appeared on "Larry King Live," and a comment by his lawyer, George Felos (who fielded all questions from callers, though Schiavo responded directly to questions from the host), gave further reason for doubt:

Caller: Quick comment. I'm not understanding why a blood relative wouldn't make this decision and not a non-blood relative. My question is, if this happened 15 years ago, and this gentleman and his wife decided between them that they would pull the tube and let each other die if they were in this kind of a situation, what took him eight years to make that decision and why didn't he make it in those first eight years and has now had another seven years tacked on? . . .

Felos: Sure. For those years, Michael was trying desperately to--as, I guess, he had a desperate hope that Terri would get better, despite the doctors telling him that, you know, Mike, there's nothing there, there is no hope. He refused to believe it. It took many, many years for Michael to finally, I guess, come to reality and believe that Terri was not coming back.

For eight years, in other words, Mr. Schiavo failed to carry out what he now insists--and his supporters unquestioningly assert--were her wishes. Furthermore, as we noted yesterday, after his change of heart about whether his wife could be saved, he took up with another woman, fathered two children with her and announced his intention to marry her.

Again, the point here is not that any of this behavior is blameworthy, but rather that it provides ample reason to doubt whether Mr. Schiavo can be trusted to act on Mrs. Schiavo's behalf.

You Don't Say
"Schiavo Case Highlights In-Law Tensions"--headline, Associated Press, March 22

Looking Back in Anger
New York Sun columnist John Avlon saw Jesse Jackson preach at New York's left-wing Riverside Church on Sunday, and he got a quote that wonderfully sums up how reactionary is today's American liberal left (ellipsis in original):

After the event, Rev. Jackson left the altar quickly. I followed his entourage into a departing elevator and asked the reverend what he felt watching Iraqis vote six weeks ago."I have to put it into context," he replied. "The same people who enjoy watching democracy in Iraq would not fight for us to have the vote in our own country. And Cheney, who voted three times to keep Mandela in jail, did not vote for democracy in South Africa. So I am suspicious of their motives for their newfound passion for democracy. . . . You have to hope that the people [in Iraq] are better off, but it is premature to arrive at any conclusions that they are better off. All we know is that they are dying, daily."

Jackson answers a question about democracy in Iraq by complaining about Americans who, in the past, opposed or failed to support democracy for black Americans and South Africans. Does this make any sense? After all, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Anyone who was old enough to vote then is at least 61 today. The number of people who "enjoy watching democracy in Iraq" but "would not fight for us to have the vote in our own country" is rather small by now.

As for the bit about Mandela, Jackson is referring to a nonbinding congressional resolution from the 1980s. Maybe Cheney was wrong to oppose it, but his opposition does not seem to have retarded South Africa's move toward full democracy, nor did it prevent Mandela from serving a stint as president.

It's backward-looking and a bit ungracious for Jackson to dwell on resentments over battles his side has already won. And it is he who is showing himself a fair-weather friend of democracy, supporting it for black Americans and South Africans but not Iraqis.

Great Moments in 'Antiwar' Activism
From a report on a weekend "antiwar" protest in the Sunday News of Lancaster, Pa.:

Young and old came together for the silent vigil sponsored by the Lancaster Coalition for Peace and Justice. The march was marked by tooting horns from passing vehicles and outbreaks of clapping and cheering from the crowd. One protester started to yell as an counter-protester walked through the crowd holding a "support our troops" poster.

"This is anger!" he yelled as he chased after the elderly man at Penn Square.

Hmm, menacing an old man for supporting the troops: the latest example of "patriotic dissent."

Maybe a Different Contractor Would Be Better
"Binladen Group Wins New Airport Projects"--headline, Arab News (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia), March 21

Beam Me Up, Scotty
Would you believe, some people thought we were irresponsible when we reported on speculation that Yasser Arafat might have died of AIDS? Bernama, the "Malaysian national news agency," reports from Colombo, Sri Lanka, that a Palestinian Arab official has a rather more fanciful explanation:

Attallah Quiba, the Palestinian ambassador in Sri Lanka, believes that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was killed by unnamed Israelis using advanced technology, the Island newspaper said.

Responding to questions at a media conference in Colombo on Friday, Quiba claimed that two Israelis who met Arafat on the day he was taken sick "used a laser device to attack Arafat."

"They tried to flee after using the device but were wrestled down by the Palestinian Authority security personnel. Both men were carrying Canadian passports."

Arafat is in stable condition after dying at a Paris hospital.

The Roe Effect of the First Century
In its cover story this week on early Christianity, Newsweek notes that "the sociologist Rodney Stark calculates that the number of Christians rose from roughly 1,000 (or .0017 percent of the Roman Empire) in A.D. 40 to nearly 34 million in 350 (or 56.5 percent of the total population)."

How'd they do it? Here's one way: "By largely banning abortion and female infanticide, Christians increased the ranks of women who could in turn bear Christian children."

Great Moments in Publishing
Mary Mapes, the producer CBS fired after she used fabricated memos in a story about President Bush's National Guard service, has signed a book deal with St. Martin's Press in "the high six figures," Crain's New York Business reports. The book is tentatively titled "The Other Side of the Story":

Ms. Mapes continues to insist that the story was accurate, and that the documents were not forged. The book will present a detailed counterattack against an independent panel's findings that the segment should not have aired, and will include documentation and analysis that she says backs up her reporting and which the panel did not release.

Sounds like a snoozer, though perhaps St. Martin's is hoping on marketing it as a Bush-bashing bestseller.

Coals Still en Route to Newcastle
"Rice Arrives in China"--headline, Asian News International, March 20

Not Too Brite--CLXXXIV
"An Indian woman committed suicide so her two blind sons could receive her eyes and see," Reuters reports from New Delhi. "But doctors say the chances of success are bleak."

Oddly Enough!

(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here.)

What Would Teens Do Without Experts?
"Early Classes Could Deprive Teens of Sleep, Experts Say"--headline, KVOA Web site (Tucson, Ariz.), March 21

What Would Super Swine Do Without Experts?
"Super Swine Was Real, Experts Say"--headline, CNN.com, March 22

What Would We Do Without Books?
"Hitler Was Personally Behind Holocaust, Book Says"--headline, Reuters, March 22

Are They Making Cars Out of Yarn?
"GM Plans to Cut Salaried Staff; Overhaul Looms"--headline, The Wall Street Journal (link for subscribers), March 21

The Gorillas Are for It, the Chimps Against
"Primates Divided Over Royal Wedding"--headline, Church of England Newspaper, March 18

Two-Time Loser
"Austrlian MP Loses Long Lost Son"--headline, BBC Web site, March 21

Lotto Dummies
"The agency running the Powerball lottery might decrease the odds of winning the multimillion-dollar jackpot to stem a record-setting run of winners that is keeping jackpots small and, the agency says, causing ticket sales to plunge," reports the Chicago Sun-Times.

So let's see if we have this straight: Because too many people are winning the lottery, not enough people are buying tickets, so lottery officials are responding by making the odds even worse. They aren't kidding when they say a lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Charley Fritze, Joshua Claybourne, June Barden, Frank Russo, Steven Wallach, Marji Meyer, David Gail, Dave Donnelly, Michael Segal, David Shapero, Rochi Ebner, Anthony Goodman, Ethel Fenig, Curt Roelle, Jeremy Tal, Steve Lantz, Brian Rom, Robert Brooks, Julie Beck, Elliot Ganz, Barak Moore, Monty Krieger, Dan Meir, David Noel, Mark Swanson, Richard Zahn and Jim Orheim. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Fred Barnes: Wolfowitz, Bolton and Hughes understand--and share--Bush's shake-up-the-world view.
• Brendan Miniter: The Schiavo case shows that the "culture of life" is about more than abortion.
• Bret Stephens: In the Mideast, things are looking up--and Nancy Soderberg is feeling down.