Oh, Ricky

This is so not the bill that passed:

Santorum said Congress returned for an emergency session to discuss the Schiavo case "for one reason, so the feeding tube could be reconnected and a trial, a new trial with new evidence could be presented. For this judge in this district to ignore that is tantamount, I believe, to an offense that should be discussed in the Congress."

First, the bill you guys passed had no mention of a feeding tube. At all. If that was what you really wanted, you should have attempted to pass a law that stated just that.

Second, the bill reads:

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

I'm not a law expert, but there is a difference in my world between "will" and "shall." And granting jurisdiction to a court wouldn't necessarily mean the court has to weigh in with a verdict, does it?

*UPDATE* As I went to bed, I realized the "shall" parsing was a pretty silly arguement for me to try and make. I do stand by the idea that granting jurisdiction does not mean the court has to take up the case.

Finally, one judge goes so far to suggest that the passage of the bill was "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people – our Constitution."

Rick, if you'd really wanted the outcome you stated, you should have passed a bill that said just that. Every American would be overjoyed at the limited scope of your legislation and the far reaching implications of it. No doubt it would have sealed your fate for 2006.

The irony is that the judges that rejected the Schindler's appeals weren't activist enough for ole Rick Santorum. And it's tearing him apart.