Glenn’s analysis seems reasonable, but I think he underestimates the religious fervor of those who are protesting. I’ve written a couple of ”posts on this topic”.

INSTAPUNDIT HYPOCRISY ON SCHIAVO CASE

The Professor, host of the what is the blogosphere's BEST BLOG: INSTAPUNDIT - recently posted that he opposes the death penalty because of "the inevitability of caprice and mistake."

Based on that, I sent the following email to the distinguished Professor:
Professor;

Do you believe that the Schiavo case is an instance of judicial "caprice and mistake," and that therefore Terri is a victim of an injustice, or that justice has been served?

Please don't cop out by arguing that since the SCOTUS didn't take the case that therefore justice had to have been served. The Dred Scot case, and the Japanese internment case each prove SCOTUS is fallible.

He replied:

It's been looked at by 22 judges, plus the Supremes several times. Ithink [sic] that's pretty good. I think the risk of error is lower, too.

I replied:

Professor;

If this review process is good enough for Terri then it is good enough for convicted murderers.

I DEMAND that you rescind your opposition to the death penalty, or rescind your opinion on the Terri Schiavo case.

You cannot REPEAT CANNOT hold both views without blatant contradiction.

I await his reply.

FOR THE RECORD: I favor life for Terri and death for convicted murderers - EACH OF WHOM GET MORE THOROUGH JUDICIAL REVIEWS THAN TERRI HAS RECEIVED! (In fact, before the death penalty is carried out, it is also reviewed by at least 22 judges, and usually goes up to the Supremes several times.) BUT, NOT A SINGLE CONVICTED MURDERER WOULD EVER BE FORCED TO BEGIN THE EXECUTION PROCESS WHILE HIS CASE WAS STILL UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW - AS TERRI HAS! AND IF A EVER JUDGE REFUSED TO REVIEW DEATH-ROW A CASE (AS SEVERAL HAVE REFUSED TO REVIEW TERRI'S CASE) HE'D BE IMPEACHED!

IF TERRI'S CASE RECEIVED AS MUCH REVIEW AS THE AVERAGE DEATH PENALTY CASE SHE'D BE GETTING FOOD AND WATER RIGHT NOW!

Bottom-line: when the judicial review process is over - (and it looks like it is, EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN NO DE NOVO REVIEW!) - all legal means will have been exhausted. And when Terri dies due to the active removal of her food and water (which would kill anyone) it will have been an avoidable injustice. If her passing informs each of us and our society that we must all have written proxy arrangements, then her death will not have been in vain.

UPDATE: So far - no further reply from the Professor. Not surpising - he's a busy man; he was on cable TV tonight! So, I just sent him this email:

If new DNA evidence in death-row cases is okay, then why didn't any judge allow any new evidence of Terri's condition in Terri's case?

AGAIN: it seems to me that death row inmates routinely get MORE DUE PROCESS than Terri got.

Therefore; if the degree of due process we give death-row inmates is too low to assure a caprice-less and mistake-free conclusion, how can you believe that Terri and her parents got sufficient DUE PROCESS?! This was the CRUX of the Congressional bill passed to re-open her case. They wanted her to get a review every bit as thorough as one given routinely to death-row inmates - who routinely get NEW EVIDENCE, such as DNA, introduced during their federal appeals.

And you seem to miss that. INCREDIBLE. You seem to endorse the idea that a convicted murderer is entitled to greater review of his case than Terri. BIZARRE. And inconsistent.

And you will need more than to rely on the wisdom of the late Charles Black to paper over it.
If I get a reply I will post it. He is a distinguished law professor, so he may have a good answer. We will see...

i didn't even realize andrew sullvian was back. wasn't he on a european vaca?

I am not a crazy religious zealot. (lol)

Mr. Reynolds point is good, but ALAS! he misunderstands Sullivan. Sullivan's complaint is that Religious zealotry is not good for conservatism--But Glenn Reynolds cites Sullivan as saying that Religious zealotry are taking over america...a tricky sleight of hand.

That's how you get to be a Lawyer, I suppose.

James Taranto in OJ's Best of the Web-Today threw his two cents in on assessing Sullivan's opinion too.

Wow. "Glenn Reynolds gets it exactly rights? Seems like a 180 degree turn from the who just a week ago said "Dawn Summers is ranting that our Congress is dealing with the Schiavo issue. I have to disagree. ... I don't want Congress to legislate morality, but if we don't know murder when we see it, it may be time for them to step in."

Considering that Reynolds writes: "respecting their role in the system, and not rushing to overturn all the rules because we don't like the outcome, seems to me to be part of being a member of civilized society rather than a mob. As I say, I thought conservatives knew this."

In essence I take this opportunity to point out that everyone who is thinking this through rationally has finally reached the place I was seven days ago.

Next time we get all crazy and contemplate scrapping the constitution, may I suggest we just install me as the country's leader. I promise to rule with benevolent severity.

Dawn, I make it clear that I'm talking about the part with Andrew Sullivan.

Huh. You and I have very different definitions of "nothing to add." Come on, no shame in admitting I am right. I always am.

You have yet to ever be right, about anything. I wasn't writing about Schiavo here, only about Sullivan's ideas on religious conservatism as they relate to that case (as well as every issue with which he breaks with conservatives).

Admit it.

Karol--

Finally, we disagree...

D

If all you were saying you agreed with was Instapundit's opinion of Andrew Sullivan, I suggest adding something. You were referring people to the home of "read the whole thing," and if you only agree with part of it "I have nothing to add" is ambiguous.

The One Hand Clapping post Reynolds links to is fantastic, and gets the analysis of the Schiavo case exactly right. I have nothing to add regarding that issue.