“Ayatollah DeLay”

98 thoughts on ““Ayatollah DeLay””

1. As a Christian, I find it terribly disheartening that so many fellow believers are willing to jump onto a political bandwagon as soon as catch-phrases like “Culture of Life/Culture of Death” are thrown around.
   Terri’s case, and the story of her husband and family, is heartbreaking. The courts, though, have been doing exactly what the courts are supposed to do. Ironic that conservatives so frequently angered by “activist courts” are now applauding an “activist congress.”

2. A man for all seasons.

3. Well, I do think we are seeing the true face of the Republican party, under its current leadership. It is particularly upsetting to see this kind of behavior from the same people who voted against Medicaid funding and for the bankruptcy bill. And, as so often is the case, it doesn’t seem to me that the Democrats are putting up enough of a fight. According to a poll sited by kevin Drum (sorry, I don’t know how to do links) this espisode is not playing at all well outside of a narrow range of religous groups. Maybe more people will begin to see how extreme the House Republican leadership has become.

4. Interesting, but wrong.
   How surprising.
   The case of Terri Schiavo has never been a “private” affair. It was a judge, in a legal proceeding, who ordered her feeding tube removed. It wasn’t Mr. Schiavo, acting as her guardian, who made the decision.
   Terri Schiavo does have a right to practice her religion, and her religious beliefs are certainly relevant to the question of what she would have wanted in this situation. The suggestion that we can’t take into account a woman’s religious beliefs in a legal proceeding purportedly focused on what her beliefs about end of life care would be is preposterous.
   This case is about the rights of an individual. In particular, it’s about whether that individual has a right to continue to live, even if others don’t want her to, and even if many of us would made a different choice were we in those circumstances.

5. The case of Terri Schiavo has never been a “private” affair.
   Huh? You’ve misread that Thomas. The issue is not whether a person can take a matter of personal importance to court, but whether someone for whom the matter is not personal can do so as a third party wanting to make a political/religious statement.

6. Wasn’t Ayatollah DeLay the villian in 101 Dalmatians?

7. Sorry, Thomas, but the judge allowed the guardian to make the decision. The court enforced the decision against others who were trying to insinuate themselves into the process but had no legal standing.
   The case is not about whether someone has the right to live. She is dead for all practical purposes and is not aware of any of this. The Catholic Church has allowed the removal of heroic medical measures, thousands of feeding tubes have been removed, even in Catholic hospitals. The Schindlers are making a mockery of Catholic doctrine because they refuse to accept reality. Tom Delay is making a mockery of the judicial system because he is trying to avoid the consequences of his corrupt behavior.

8. Wasn’t Ayatollah DeLay the villian in 101 Dalmatians?
   “If he doesn’t scare you no evil thing will”

9. Thomas: The suggestion that we can’t take into account a woman’s religious beliefs in a legal proceeding purportedly focused on what her beliefs about end of life care would be is preposterous.
   The guardian at litem looked thoroughly into Terri Schiavo’s wishes/beliefs about being kept alive. Had she been a devout Catholic who believed the right thing to do was to keep a living body alive when the mind is gone, that would have been a factor. But if it wasn’t, it wasn’t. No one has the right to impose religious beliefs on another person against their will.

10. wasn’t it all the rage, just a few years ago, to comlplain about Gore’s “venue-shopping” ?
    They went judge shopping, court shopping, venue shopping, loophole shopping. They sued everywhere and anywhere…
    right.

11. Gibbs’s statement is nonsense. Terri could only be “disobeying her Church and endangering her mortal soul” if she was capable of deciding to have the tube removed. In her current condition she is clearly not capable of deciding to do anything, therefore she cannot be committing a sin.
    Tt also isn’t true that it violates Catholic doctrine to remove a feeding tube:
    “When death is imminent one may refuse forms of treatment that would only result in a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life. There is a presumption in favor of continuing to provide food and water to the patient, but there is a stage in the dying process when even these may no longer be obligatory because they provide no benefit.”
    It seems clear that Terri has reached that point, and if so then there is nothing immoral about removing the tube.

12. Isn’t this essentially a bill of attainder? Don’t the Powers That Be realize that such are disallowed by the constitution? It will be interesting to see what backflips Scalia does to avoid applying his usual standards of interpretation to this when it comes before the supreme court.

13. This truly is a bitter cocktail we are all being asked to drink. Guess it’s just another day of business as usual at The End Daze Bar and Grill.

14. Wasn’t Tom Delay in rather public trouble over something he’d done before all this Schiavo frenzy got whipped up by his good buddies on the religious right?
    How convenient for him. What a coincidence.

15. Cruella Delay. Works for me.

16. Let’s not forget that with the increasing number of conservative judges that have been appointed it’s getting harder and harder to find a high-profile case where you can place the Republican party on the losing side, and thereby position yourself as oppressed.
    Be interesting to see if the evangelicals keep shrieking about gay marriage after seeing all this effort put forth on their behalf.

17. Quote from Santorum on the judge’s decision, by way of Atrios:
    “U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore has defied Congress by not staying Terri Schiavo’s starvation execution for the time it takes him to hold a full hearing on her case, a leading Republican senator said Tuesday.
    “You have judicial tyranny here,” Santorum told WABC Radio in New York. “Congress passed a law that said that you had to look at this case. He simply thumbed his nose at Congress.”
    “What the statute that [Whittemore] was dealing with said was that he shall hold a trial de novo,” the Pennsylvania Republican explained. “That means he has to hold a new trial. That’s what the statute said.”
    “What he’s saying is, ‘I don’t have to hold a new trial because I’ve already determined that her rights have been protected,'” Santorum said.
    “That’s nice for him to say that But that’s not what Congress told him to do,” he added. “Judges should obey the law. And this judge – in my mind – simply ignored the law.”

18. I’m a little curious what power Congress has over this judge. If they passed a law, doesn’t that automatically mean it’s ex post facto? That, plus the fact that (AFAIK) Congress doesn’t have the power to order a judge to do anything at all, means they have no standing in this particular case. But while(1){IANAL}.

19. via Digby and the NYT:
    “One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America,” Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
    “This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others,” Mr. DeLay said.
    Mr. DeLay complained that “the other side” had figured out how “to defeat the conservative movement,” by waging personal attacks, linking with liberal organizations and persuading the national news media to report the story. He charged that “the whole syndicate” was “a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in.”
    —-
    someone, please, lock DeLay and Santorum in a box.

20. No. Put simply, the Schindlers have a right to litigate on behalf of their daughter. And Congress has always had the power to modify federal jurisdiction and like it or not, that not infrequently happens in response to specific cases. Look at the various sex abuse cases from the 1980s on, e.g. Elizabeth Morgan.
    As for what Catholic doctrine says, for better or worse it seems to have turned against permitting the removal of feeding tubes. T. Schiavo is entitled to have had her religious views, whatever they were, considered. And from looking at the record, it doesn’t seem they were.

21. Edward, are Terri’s parents strangers to her? And, are you suggesting that, if no one came forward to speak on Terri’s behalf, then the court could do whatever it wanted, without regard to Terri’s wishes?
    freelunch, sorry but read the opinions, available on the web. M. Schiavo went to court for authorization of the removal of Terri’s feeding tube, which authorization was granted by the court. Terri’s parents were represented at the court proceeding.
    The Catholic Church teaches that food and water generally aren’t “heroic” measures. Terri isn’t dead.
    Kevin, it is also clear that, until her feeding tube was removed, Terri wasn’t dying. Death wasn’t imminent, until the tube was removed.

22. I’m not claiming it’s ex post facto because they passed it, I’m suggesting it is because it addresses something that’s already been ruled on, and is a case in progress. Again, I’m a long way from being any kind of even casual authority on law, but this seems to be exactly the kind of behavior that Section 9 Clause 3 of Article I was written to prevent.
    Just to be clear.

23. You don’t get a trial on the facts if you don’t make a valid legal claim or the court lacks jurisdiction to hear your case. And you don’t get a temporary restraining order if you are incredibly unlikely to succeed on the merits.
    Levin explained what the bill did and didn’t do, but I guess they didn’t get it. I suppose that they really convinced themselves it was just like the death penalty so there had to be a Fourteenth Amendment issue, but really. A lot of the Republicans in Congress are lawyers & so are most of their staffs. I just googled & Santorum has a law degree. Then again, Bill Frist has a medical degree; it’s not fool proof.
    I can’t figure out if the Democratic Senators fooled the Republicans into passing a bill that wouldn’t get them what they wanted, or if the Republicans knew exactly what was going on & this is exactly what they want. As ever I’m sure it varies for individual reps and senators.
    (I did think the judge would issue a TRO, but more because of the high stakes & the death threats that would surely ensue than because they had any chance at all of succeeding on the merits. I should’ve realized: judges are made of sterner stuff than that.)
    If they pass another bill applying specifically to this case I’m pretty sure it will be found unconstitutional. The Democrats had just better not let them get away with passing them a generally applicable bill. Truthfully, now that they’ve seen the poll numbers, I doubt they’ll try. As it is they can tell “the base” that they did what they could and those awful activist judges who don’t respect life stopped them again. Tom DeLay has probably won some staunch defenders. To go further would cost them more with the rest of the country than it would gain them. So I’m guessing they won’t.

24. Put simply, the Schindlers have a right to litigate on behalf of their daughter

    The Schindler’s right to file suit is in no way related to their standing, and is certainly no guarantee that their wishes will be granted if their case is heard.

    Look at the various sex abuse cases from the 1980s on, e.g. Elizabeth Morgan.

    Funny you should mention that.

25. As it is they can tell “the base” that they did what they could and those awful activist judges who don’t respect life stopped them again.

    The cynic in me (yes, there is one. I try to keep him quiet, because cynics are the death of the party) says this is just a scrap of meat flung to the hyenas in the constituency to show that they tried and, sadly, failed. But I’ve got even less evidence for that than most of the other things I have to say.

26. Katherine, i read that there were only 3 Senators present when this loser was passed. How did this even get the status of a bill? Why can’t the judiciary just ignore it?

27. For those of you who suspect I must be channeling Mark Lerner, I’d like to make it clear that I only found him when Googling Elizabeth Morgan (and I only Googled her once, I swear). When Googling a bit about what others were saying about ex post facto laws as applies to the Schiavo case (after my 1:12pm post), I discovered that, horror of horrors, I’m in agreement with someone over at dKos. Which means that we both must be wrong, maybe.

28. Katherine, I suspect this was done in such a way to maximize the froth and sense of grievance going forward into 2006, which will also help the right-to-life movement and the push to drive through the Bush administration’s judicial nominees. As well as distract from DeLay’s growing ethics problems. And be used to take out Ben Nelson once and for all.

29. Edward, are Terri’s parents strangers to her?
    Terri’s family ran the course of existing legal options open to them, Thomas. It’s DeLay and the other members of what’s become The Schindler’s Own Personal Congress who are the strangers here. Stepping up to pontificate about someone they do not know.
    And, are you suggesting that, if no one came forward to speak on Terri’s behalf, then the court could do whatever it wanted, without regard to Terri’s wishes?
    You’ve totally lost me here.

30. Santorum’s remarks about “judicial tyranny” are more deliberate nonsense. As Katherine notes, they had to know that this was a very likely result under the flimsy bill that they passed. It is reasonable to speculate that they cynically chose this weak bill rather than passing broader legislation in order to give a false thrill to their base, but not piss off the 70% who think they should not intervene at all.
    For example, pass a federal law forbidding removal of medical care absent a prior written statement from the comatose authorizing that procedure (probably constitutional, except for 10th amendment concerns). Voila — Schaivo goes back on the feeding tube. (Of course, Frist being a hospital owner would want the Bush hospital exception adopted in Texas — medical care can be withheld once the money runs out). A law with real teeth would only hurt them in the long run with the majority that right now mildly disapproves of their actions.
    The law that they passed specifically did not create any new substantive rights and did not direct the federal court judge to do anything in particular. All that it did was create a new procedural remedy so that new lawsuits couild be filed in federal court and empower the federal judge to decide issues anew (rather than deferring to the final decisions of the state courts, which is the law in all other cases). It did not give the parent’s any new substantive arguments to make. In other words, they have to make the same arguments already vigorously litigated and lost in state court proceedings. By the way, that is why it was not a bill of attainder or ex post facto — it did not direct a result.
    The temporary restraining order (“TRO” — legalese for an emergency injunction heard on short notice) was denied under a well-settled rule; you must convince the judge that you are likely to prevail at trial in order to obtain the remedy. The parents have no case, and therefore the TRO was correctly refused. Even though the judge was given the power to decide the case de novo, he has discretion in ruling on the TRO to note the long track record of failure of the same contentions in prior cases, and to therefore predict that they will lose again in federal court. Indeed, it is unusual to have such a clear record as to what will likely happen in a case — typically, the TRO occurs first in a case and the judge must make an educated guess based on skimpy written evidence as to who will likely prevail.
    The Court of Appeal should, if it follows applicable law, deny the “appeal.” It is not literally an appeal, but another emergency request for higher court intervention, which is entirely discretionary by the Court of Appeal. They are not obligated to review the order denying the TRO. Also, to overturn the lower court’s denial of a TRO, they are supposed to find “abuse of discretion” which is an extremely difficult standard to prove. They are supposed to defer to the lower court’s decision-making on a TRO unless there was no rational basis for the decision. Put another way, the trial judge actually has more power than the appellate court with regard to a TRO.
    We’ll see what happens next. One thing is certain, expect more phony (i.e., lying) posturing from the Republicans advocates.

31. The cynic in me (yes, there is one. I try to keep him quiet, because cynics are the death of the party) says this is just a scrap of meat flung to the hyenas in the constituency to show that they tried and, sadly, failed.
    I’m beginning to agree although my cynic — which I keep nicely fed and watered and under healthy cynical growlights — is going even further and suspecting that this has been, in some sense, the plan all along: deliberately failing, but doing so at the hands of those evilmeannogoodverybad “liberal activist judges”, thus keeping the base riled for ’06. I can only hope that this backfires and that those who aren’t, as you put it, hyenas start to reconsider whether these Congresspeople are worthy of their loyalty, but my cynic reminds me that the sheer non-competitiveness of House races reduces that chance to negligible. Here’s to hoping, regardless.

32. And I see praktike and I are on the same page; anyone else wanna jump in? The cynical water’s warm!

33. Ayatollah Delay isn’t different from his counterparts in Iran.
    There’s nothing eye-opening about that kind of puerile hyperbole. What’s next? Bush and Hitler parallels? Oh wait…

34. Thomas,
    Actually, the Bishops in Florida have put out several statements indicating that continued treatment is morally required only if there is some value to Terri in doing so.
    “Simply put, we are called to provide basic means of sustenance such as food and water unless they are doing more harm than good to the patient, or are useless because the patient’s death is imminent. As long as they effectively provide nourishment and help provide comfort, we should see them as part of what we owe to all who are helpless and in our care. In certain situations a patient may morally refuse medical treatment and such decisions may properly be seen as an expression of our hope of union with God in the life to come.”
    They’ve specifically refused to say what should be done in this case except to say that as long as there is uncertainty about the viability of her condition or hopes for improvement, people should err on the side of caution.

35. Mac-
    Over on Tacitus, hunter had no problem calling those in what he called the “Death Party” Nazis, namely Falos. You participated in that thread, so you probably read that. I don’t recall you complaining then so why now, eh?
    FTR, I’m w/ Anarch. I think Delay and Frist knew this would fail and are going to use it for direct mail requests for money and support ahead of the 06 elections. “Those liberal judges/Dems killed Terri, help us stop them!”
    For those who don’t believe this, just wait and watch. When the base is so predictably sensitive to these subjects and so easily manipulated, why not take advantage of it?

36. I don’t recall you complaining then so why now, eh?
    You should work on your recollection. I’ve three separate times complained about his “Death Party” characterization. Even if I hadn’t complained I didn’t link to his diary, or call it an “eye opener” so your point is… well, do you have one?

37. Hey, lay off my “eye opener” bit, will ya?
    It’s a fascinating parallel and it should, quite frankly, make us open our eyes to the methods being used by our politians. We’re quick to jump all over the mullahs for lying to their people, but slow to see the same type abuse here at home.

38. here are some Hitler references.

39. To repeat what I said on Yglesias, don’t buy even the second or third headfakes. I do not yet understand what is going on here, but there is I think too much energy, rhetoric, and passion being expended for me to simply see this as pandering to the base or covering for Delay. My gut tells this is very big, the start of a huge move.
    Nuke I
    Nuke II
    A little known blog discusses the “nuclear option”. This will be brutal, so brutal, alienating, and infuriating that the Senate may need to permanently adjourn to prevent Bob Byrd from attacking Frist with a can. The nuclear option is so horrible and contrary to the Senate’s historical role and view of itself that I am thinking the Republicans will not go thru with it.
    And if they cannot stack SCOTUS and Roe stands for another 5-10-20 years? Unacceptable. So DeLay and the House may be moving to Plan B. I am not clear what that might exactly entail, but it won’t be pretty.

40. Hey, lay off my “eye opener” bit, will ya?
    No. It’s beneath you, or at least I hope so. If Juan Cole wants to go Ann Coulter on you, don’t encourage him.

41. to prevent Bob Byrd from attacking Frist with a can.
    For stealing his plays I suppose.

42. No. It’s beneath you, or at least I hope so. If Juan Cole wants to go Ann Coulter on you, don’t encourage him.
    You don’t share my alarm at the rise in power of fundamentalists in the US, Mac. That’s fine. I, however, am quite alarmed and feel parallels like this are very useful in helping folks keep the power grap underway in perspective. Is DeLay as bad as most men we think of when we think of an Ayatollah? No. Is he abusing his power? Most definitely.

43. I may not have given sufficient lead to those links. There is a reason the filibuster survived for 200 years, thru the age of Calhoun and Thurmond. It is because the procedural steps required to get rid of it are very onerous and offensive. See above links.

44. I am enough of a cynic to think any thing of the people in charge of the republican party. I do not think that all republicans are this power orented but Frist, Delay, bush. and the rest of the “nazi’s brown shirts” are very capable of this sort of thing. Just look at the track record of Karl Rove, they will stop at nothing to get their way and to further the establishment of a autocracy in their name. They want no one to object to their criminal behavior so they use propoganda to control responses. I am very afraid of the course that they have taken America using fear and denial that mimic’s hitlers Germany of the 30’s and 40’s.

45. Edward, Are the members of Congress intervening in the case? No. They aren’t parties to the litigation. The parties instigating the action are Terri’s parents, who, as you admit, aren’t strangers to her. And my question is this: we regularly let strangers intervene in families. For example, in cases of abuse. Would you rule those out of bounds, since the complainers don’t have standing to complain? Or are there limits to what people can do, regardless of whether those who complain are in the family or out?
    Kevin–the relevant part of the bishops’ statement is this: If Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube were to be removed because the nutrition she receives is of no use to her, or because she is near death, or because it is unreasonably burdensome for her, her family, or caregivers, it could be seen as permissible. But if her feeding tube were to be removed to intentionally cause her death, or because her life is perceived to be useless, or because it is believed that the quality of her life is such that she would be better off, this would be wrong.
    __________
    That isn’t the only statement that those in the Church have made on the relevant issues. For example, the LA Times reports today on a prior statement by the pope:
    “Sick people in a vegetative state, waiting to recover or for a natural end, have the right to basic healthcare (nutrition, hydration, hygiene, warmth, etc.),” the pope told an international conference of Catholic medical associations. “The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical procedure.
    “Therefore, their use must be considered ordinary and proportionate and, as such, morally obligatory.”
    When the vegetative state has lasted longer than a year, the pope continued, the unlikelihood of recovery “cannot ethically justify abandoning or interrupting basic care, including food and hydration, of a patient.” The withdrawal of food and water from such patients “is truly euthanasia by omission.”
    _____________
    You may be right about the morality of removing the feeding tube, but it won’t be because you agree with the Catholic Church on the point.

46. Dennis, we don’t do that here. Please read the posting rules. The bit about “no Nazi’s” extends to calling people Nazis who are not actual members of the National Socialist German Workers Party. “No brownshirts” either. Thank you.

47. “No brownshirts” either.
    But Dennis “Ayatollahs” is “eye-opening” so you’re good to go with that.

48. Edward, Are the members of Congress intervening in the case? No. They aren’t parties to the litigation. The parties instigating the action are Terri’s parents, who, as you admit, aren’t strangers to her. And my question is this: we regularly let strangers intervene in families. For example, in cases of abuse. Would you rule those out of bounds, since the complainers don’t have standing to complain? Or are there limits to what people can do, regardless of whether those who complain are in the family or out?
    Arghhh…you’re trying to argue it both ways Thomas. Let’s see if we can narrow this down.
    Can you call up DeLay and get him to take a case in which you’ve exhausted all existing legal options to The Floor for a new law that pertains to only you Thomas?
    Neither can I. Or any other American, for that matter. WHICH IS GOOD! That would represent a perversion of and threat to the legal system.
    What DeLay is doing is sticking his nose into business that it has no business in, constitutionally or socially. Read the Polls, overwhelmingly Americans don’t like this nonsense.
    Also, consider this:

    The Bush administration and the current Congressional leadership like to wax eloquent about states’ rights. But they dropped those principles in their rush to stampede over the Florida courts and Legislature. The new law doesn’t miss a chance to trample on the state’s autonomy and dignity. There are a variety of technical legal doctrines the federal courts use to show deference to state courts, like “abstention” and “exhaustion of remedies.” The new law decrees that in Ms. Schiavo’s case, these well-established doctrines simply will not apply.
    Republicans have traditionally championed respect for the delicate balance the founders created. But in the Schiavo case, and in the battle to stop the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominations, President Bush and his Congressional allies have begun to enunciate a new principle: the rules of government are worth respecting only if they produce the result we want. It may be a formula for short-term political success, but it is no way to preserve and protect a great republic.

49. Put this comment in the category of “watching sausage being made”:
    In my opinion, one can’t “OK” a comparison between Tom DeLay and the “Ayatollahs” on the grounds that it’s eye opening rhetoric, but pre-emptively forbid other kinds of equally “eye opening” rhetoric.

50. But Dennis “Ayatollahs” is “eye-opening” so you’re good to go with that.
    I see you’re not alone in that assessment Mac. I’ll update the post.

51. What the judge decided was that the parents failed to demonstrate a likelihood that they would win an eventual trial so as to justify the requested pre-trial relief. As a lawyer, Santorum certainly knows the difference between a trial and a hearing on a Temporary Restraining Order (a pre-trial proceeding). Santorum’s comment that the judge violated the statute that gave life to this case by refusing to grant a trial de novo is a deliberate lie. The judge did no such thing.
    Unfortunately, the judge is a Clinton appointee which will nicely play into expected Republican arguments that this is another example of why extraordinary measures must be taken to ensure the appointment of the conservative Republican nominees for the various federal courts. It’s too bad the case wasn’t assigned to a conservative Republican judge who would be forced to choose between his conservative judicial philosophy and the obvious wishes of the “activist” Republican Congress.

52. Thanks Edward

53. Thomas-
    The only reason that Mr. Schiavo was in court was because his in-laws fought the decision that he had the right to make. The court did no more than confirm that right. The judge would never have ordered the feeding tube removed if the Schindlers had not interjected themselves into the cause.
    You selectively answered the comment about Catholic doctrine, ignoring the fact that neither bishops nor Catholic hospitals agree with your interpretation of that doctrine. Of course, I would never accuse you of being a cafeteria Catholic.
    If the members of Congress had not passed the law they did, this case would be over.
    This is a case of a woman in persistent vegetative state whose parents refuse to follow the law and allow the assigned guardian to make the decision that he, and he alone, is supposed to make. Are the Schindlers above the law just because they have connections, or is it that you want every single guardianship case to go to the US Supreme Court?

54. Re: your update–
    How about “Object of Emulation Delay”

55. “I’ve been convinced that calling DeLay an “Ayatollah” is parallel to calling someone a “Nazi””
    nonsense. from answer.com:
    ayatollah: A high-ranking Shiite religious authority regarded as worthy of imitation in matters of religious law and interpretation.
    ie, like maybe “bishop” or “pope”? juan cole’s statement was perfectly acceptable, although clearly intended to be ironic. and frankly, equating “ayatollah” with “nazi” is a show of prejudice. “physician, heal thyself”.

56. I’ve been convinced that calling DeLay an “Ayatollah” is parallel to calling someone a “Nazi”
    I want to protest. I’m not defending the appropriateness of applying the term to DeLay, but ‘Ayatollah’ is a lot more like ‘Archbishop’ than it is like ‘Nazi’. To turn it into a term that denotes exclusively evil is anti-Islamic bigotry of a degree that would not be permitted here wrt any other religion.
    Juan Cole’s point about Egyptian fundamentalists persecuting individuals for private matters is a good one; I thought of Naawal Sadawi (I’m sure that’s spelled wrong — the woman writer) when I first heard about the Congressional intervention, before reading Cole.

57. I hadn’t refreshed the page before I posted, so didn’t see that my point had already been made. Thanks, CTW.
    And I don’t think Cole’s “rhetoric” is over the top, either. He makes an analogy and backs it up, he’s not just flinging labels.

58. CTW, Cole wasn’t using the term generically. He made a specific comparison:
    “Ayatollah Delay isn’t different from his counterparts in Iran.”
    Those guys ain’t exactly Archbishops.

59. Edward, I confess I don’t see what you’re getting at. I think the fact that it isn’t strangers intervening in this case is obvious enough, and I also think the fact that strangers might intervene in a “private” (interfamily) dispute isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as my example was meant to show. You’ve ignored those things, focusing on the law giving persons close to Terri Schiavo the right to be heard on Terri’s rights, without explaining how it is that that law involves letting anyone else be heard on the matter.
    freelunch, read the court opinions. This was a decision made by the judge, not by Michael Schiavo. (People on both sides like to mislead on this point, for their own reasons.) The focus of the inquiry wasn’t what Michael Schiavo wanted for Terri, or thought best for Terri, but on what Terri herself would have wanted. There’s a much different focus than your post suggests. A guardian doesn’t have a right to substitute their preference.
    I didn’t misstate Catholic doctrine (which doctrine exists whether I or anyone else believes it). I accurately stated the teaching, which isn’t to say that the teachiing interprets itself. In this case, however, the process of interpretation and application isn’t particularly difficult and doesn’t leave much room doubt.

60. “I’ve been convinced that calling DeLay an “Ayatollah” is parallel to calling someone a “Nazi” and as such violates the spirit”
    Let me join the crowd who find this more objectionable than the original. Although Cole pretty clearly meant to be insulting in some sense, more likely the sense would be equivalent to calling Tom “Pastor Delay” or “Father Delay”. I do not believe that Cole thinks the word “Ayatollah” to be insulting.
    ….
    For anyone who read my speculations of 5:00, on reflection I decided they are somewhat silly in that anything the House might attempt would still eventually run into a possible filibuster. Including, for instance limiting court jurisdiction.
    However, speculation that the House might be using Schiavo to pressure the Senate to going nuclear remains interesting.

61. “I’ve been convinced that calling DeLay an “Ayatollah” is parallel to calling someone a “Nazi””
    nonsense. from answer.com:
    etc…
    yes, I know that it’s not the same thing, which is why I chose my words carefully in the update, but I assume Cole meant the more negative connotation in his comparison and hence, Mac is right.
    You’ve ignored those things, focusing on the law giving persons close to Terri Schiavo the right to be heard on Terri’s rights, without explaining how it is that that law involves letting anyone else be heard on the matter.
    Thomas, read Santorum’s response* to the judge’s decision. Does that sound like someone who didn’t expect his opinion to be considered in all this. The argument you’re advancing that all Congress did was facilitate a hearing between the concerned parties doesn’t pass the laugh test.
    Also, there’s growing evidence that you’re not in the mainstream, even among those on the right, about this.
    *From above:

    “What the statute that [Whittemore] was dealing with said was that he shall hold a trial de novo,” the Pennsylvania Republican explained. “That means he has to hold a new trial. That’s what the statute said.” “What he’s saying is, ‘I don’t have to hold a new trial because I’ve already determined that her rights have been protected,'” Santorum said.
    “That’s nice for him to say that But that’s not what Congress told him to do,” he added. “Judges should obey the law. And this judge – in my mind – simply ignored the law.”

    “what Congress told him to do”…you’re comfortable with this?

62. I know if I were Ayatollah Sistani I’d be pretty steamed about being compared to Delay
    Those guys ain’t exactly Archbishops.
    One might want to check out William Laud, who authorized the persecution of the Convenanters, (a period known in Scottish history as ‘the Killing Time’) and who ironically was the victim of a bill of attainder himself.
    You might also remember this more recent archbishop as well.
    On the other hand, we wouldn’t want to accuse Delay of being like Archbishop Orsenigo, who, when asked about the Holy See making some statement about Germany’s laws forbidding Non-Aryans (Jews and Catholics) from taking civil service jobs in 1933, replied that any intervention was impossible, because the Church couldn’t protest against German laws.
    However, I’m sure that mac wasn’t trying to insult archbishops or their archbishoprics.

63. The Elizabeth Morgan case cited, Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198 (D.C.Cir.2003)deals with the second special statute dealing with the Morgan-Foretich matter and invalidates it specifically on bill of attainder grounds. It is quite clear from the opinion that the Schiavo bill would not be invalid as a bill of attainder. Again, Congress has broad power to control the jurisdiction of federal courts, except for the types of cases specifically assigned to the Supreme Court under Article III.

64. I know if I were Ayatollah Sistani I’d be pretty steamed about being compared to Delay
    Iraq…Iran…Iraq…Iran.
    If I were Ayatollah Sistani I’d be pretty steamed if you’d use me in this context. Again, Cole was specific in referring to the Iranian variety.

65. I am totally appalled at the idea that callign someone an ayatollah, which is a specific religious title used in Shia Islam, is like calling someone a nazi. This is a slur on the religion. I am sunni, not shia but you Western people are really incredibly blind about this. This is areligion of a billion people. Our legitimate titles are deadly insults and like using the name of a fascist party that gassed millions of people? Has the entire western world already decided we are the enemy and you are just signing on? What is the matter iwth you?

66. Again, Cole was specific in referring to the Iranian variety.
    And I’m sure you were being as equally specific in separating out Iranian and Iraqi Ayatollahs (since it is all Shia Islam, just like the notion of Italian and French and German archbishops is a bit beside the point since the example you invoke are that they are all Catholic, right?) In fact, I’m sure you could name several Iranian Ayatollahs and tell me specifically why the parallel is unfair to Delay. Too bad Cole doesn’t have comments, so you are forced to take this up with Edward?

67. “I am sunni, not shia but you Western people are really incredibly blind about this.”
    Anna, allow me to apologize for us Western people. I am dumfounded and appalled by this thread. As I understand it, an Ayatollah is primarily a scholar, a professor who through education, training, and virtuous living is acclaimed an exemplar. I presume Ayatollahs can sometimes be mistaken or unvirtuous just like the rest of us. But to use the title itself as an insult, and especially to compare somehow with Nazism. I am lost here.
    There be not-good Iranian dudes. Has little or nothing to do with their titles or with Islam.

68. You might also remember this more recent archbishop as well.
    And let us not forget the baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells!

69. Anna in Cairo: I am totally appalled at the idea that callign someone an ayatollah, which is a specific religious title used in Shia Islam, is like calling someone a nazi. This is a slur on the religion.
    You’re right, Anna, and I apologize for not picking up on this sooner myself.
    Edward, I am certain you intended no such slur: can you rephrase or correct your update?

70. Thomas, when right-to-life groups start to care about making sure that there is health care for all, when they condemn laws like the one that Bush signed as governor of Texas that allow hospitals to pull the plug against the wished of the guardian, then I’ll start to take their claims to care about life seriously. Until then, I will treat them as just another political pressure group that wants to impose their religious dogmas on this country.
    I don’t know why Randall Terry and other anti-abortion folks are funding the Schindlers’ war against their son-in-law. The courts have found, based on the medical testimony, that Theresa Schiavo is in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. Though the Schindlers claim otherwise in public, they have not been able to provide any evidence to the contrary in court. It appears to be extremely dishonest and unfair of them, even actionable, that they would do this.
    The judge had to decide because the Schindlers refused to accept reality and refused to accept the decision of the guardian. Florida does not require that every single feeding tube removal go to court, but it does allow those who are not guardians to object to a decision of the guardian. That is what put Judge Greer in the middle of this. It is clear from the decisions of the Florida and Federal appellate courts that he was applying the law properly.
    The federal courts this week have made it clear that they don’t see any reason to reopen this case. Today’s dissenting opinion may appear to have some logic to it only if you ignore the decision of the majority and its footnotes. Tom Delay’s insulting comments about judges in general and Judge Greer in particular cannot possibly be helping. Senator Santorum’s arrogant comments also show a severe disrespect for the legal process.
    None of this will change the fact that Theresa Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and that death is her only way out of it.
    I’ll let you fight with the bishops over your interesting claims about Roman Catholic doctrine.

71. Edward, I am certain you intended no such slur: can you rephrase or correct your update?
    Grrrr…
    Will everyone objecting to this please go back and re-read my update. It does not imply anything close to the things I’m being accussed of here (and I’m not about to become an updating puppet, running back and forth to try and please each opinion…if I agreed it was wrong, I would say so, but I don’t.). Mac and Von were right in my opinion: Cole pushed his rhetoric too far and in the context he called DeLay an “Ayatollah” he meant it in a very negative way…HE did…Cole. The fact I didn’t see that until someone called Republicans “Nazis” is my only crime here, IMO.
    Also, not one of you is taking Cole to task for the slight you’re saying that I’m offering so the charges of harm done by me ring a bit hollow.
    Seriously, does anyone here think I consider each Ayatollah as evil as the average Nazi? Please, stop fighting Mac (or others) through me.
    I am totally appalled at the idea that callign someone an ayatollah, which is a specific religious title used in Shia Islam, is like calling someone a nazi.
    Take it up with Cole. He certainly meant no compliment to DeLay by the comparison. Seriously, this is a very misdirected indignation.

72. Seriously, does anyone here think I consider each Ayatollah as evil as the average Nazi?
    Of course not. But that is literally what you’re saying in your Update note. That is why I asked you to rephrase it.
    Also, not one of you is taking Cole to task for the slight you’re saying that I’m offering so the charges of harm done by me ring a bit hollow.
    I’m not a regular commenter on Juan Cole’s blog as I am here: I am not even a regular reader. I tend to think that regular commenters/regular readers get some leeway in taking the blogger to task over details like this – which drop-ins don’t and shouldn’t.

73. Also, not one of you is taking Cole to task for the slight you’re saying that I’m offering so the charges of harm done by me ring a bit hollow.
    I’m not demanding an update to the update, just pointing out that there wasn’t a lot of thought to the idea of exactly what an ‘ayatollah’ meant in this context by those complaing about it. Clicking thru, I thought that Juan Cole expressed the linkage, (everyone does click thru, right?) and provided support and made it the _last_ idea of the post. I take your update as simply a gesture to acknowledge that at least two people have expressed the opinion, especially since you make it the title of your piece, that this was inflammatory, though it is an example of the countermeme that finds its roots in the idea that Western ideals cannot coexist with Islam. (and a pretty deft deployment of the countermeme at that)
    I’d also add that Juan Cole has no comments (it would be hard to imagine what would happen if he did have comments, given the stuff he blogs about) but I have no complaint about what he wrote, and thus, I don’t think you were over the top. However, I do appreciate that you are willing to at least step back to make a space for discussion. I don’t think that people who feel that you were over the top are going to see this as a gesture to ensure a middle ground for discussion, however, they are just going to assume that you were called out for making an indefensible claim. More’s the pity.

74. Hailstones are variously described as “pea-sized”, golf ball-sized, grapefruit-sized, etc., as are tumors, never as hailstone-sized or tumor-sized.
    I can usually figure out what sized catastrophe an individual personality is without comparisons. That Tom Delay is like hail and cancer doesn’t mean that it would take as much weather modification or chemotherapy to fix the problem as it would, say, to cure the world of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot.
    I think we’ve caught the condition in its early stages.

75. I’m not demanding an update to the update, just pointing out that there wasn’t a lot of thought to the idea of exactly what an ‘ayatollah’ meant in this context by those complaing about it.
    This is where I disagree though. There was indeed a great deal of though to the idea, I expect.
    In fact, personally, this is why I knew to put “Ayatollah DeLay” in quotes when I first wrote the post. I knew that Cole meant it negatively. I knew it was inflammatory. I knew that I didn’t want to have the conversation where someone was accussing me of coining the phrase.
    What I didn’t realize is just how parallel it is, in spirit, not in details, to calling someone any name that immediately connotes a strong negative to most people in certain contexts.
    Let’s not pretend that Cole was using it in the sense that Anna would not object to it (and I don’t know you, Anna, but you’ll have to believe me when I tell you I’m in no way anti-Muslim…my partner is Muslim and I have a bit of a reputation for standing up against anti-Muslim rhetoric).
    Cole was clear that “hisba” was an abusive practice in the hands of corrupt fudnamentalists. His context was really specific, and the implications were not at all that was using the term as one would “Bishop” or whatever. He meant the label to sting. If folks want to object about this, it’s Coles’ characterization that’s offensive. In that respect, eveyone should object to the phrase.
    But that is literally what you’re saying in your Update note. That is why I asked you to rephrase it.
    I’ve re-read the line several times now, and I suppose I can see, out of context, why someone reads it that way. In context, I don’t though. Any suggestions on a phrasing that would be more clear?

76. Edward: In context, I don’t though. Any suggestions on a phrasing that would be more clear?
    Fair enough. It’s very irritating getting copyediting comments without an offered suggestion.
    What about: “I’ve been convinced that Cole is calling DeLay an “Ayatollah” with intent to be so offensive as to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of our posting rules against such things.”

77. thanks Jes…clarification on it’s way

78. good grief, is it really necessary to spell it out in detail?
    1. in a theocracy, religious leaders exercise political power.
    2. religious leaders can exercise it for better (eg, arguably sistani) or worse (eg, arguably Iran)
    3. some people fear that DeLay and others of his ilk would love for the US to be a theocracy.
    4. In the opinion of some, DeLay exercises his power for worse.
    (obviously, I can’t speak for juan cole, but make your own guess as to whether he’s one of the some.)
    now the logic isn’t perfect, but roughly ..
    ergo, Tom DeLay exercises power with a sectarian mindset and in the manner of an ayatollah of the Iranian variety.
    obviously, juan cole’s statement wasn’t a compliment, but it’s a far cry from accusing someone of murdering millions of people directly and tens of millions indirectly via a WW.
    got it?

79. got it?
    Not exactly.
    The problem is that for most Americans, the first person they think of when they hear “ayatollah” is Ayatollah Khomeini, who for many represented nothing so much as the taking of American hostages, a totally unforgivable act we’ve still not forgiven them for.
    So, while it’s fair to point out that “ayatollah” is merely a title, like “bishop,” in the context that most folks read Cole’s text (and how I’m convinced he meant it to be read), DeLay is comparable to someone like Ayatollah Khomeini, who we see as evil. And such associations violate the posting rules because they disrupt civil conversation.
    got it?

80. Edward: And such associations violate the posting rules because they disrupt civil conversation.
    I got it. Really, I did. (And may I say how much I appreciate your graceful acceptance of my copyedit?)
    But “Nazi” is another of those associations that disrupt civil conversation – so reliably so, in fact, that it has its own universal posting rule. Something that I’m sure Macallan was well aware of.

81. Ayatollah means “Sign of God” doesn’t it?
    And maybe some words, instead of being taboo, *should* be used in conversation so people can actually learn what they mean. Saying that “Ayatollah” equates to evil for most Americns makes me fear all the more for the status of Muslim Americans in this country.

82. Saying that “Ayatollah” equates to evil for most Americns makes me fear all the more for the status of Muslim Americans in this country.
    Good point.
    But I’ll drag this all back to why Cole used it originally, for clarity about the controversy here: it was meant to be an insult to DeLay.
    Cole had no intention of suggesting DeLay was “A high-ranking Shiite religious authority regarded as worthy of imitation in matters of religious law and interpretation.”
    Cole had every intention of suggesting DeLay was wrong via the association.
    Whether Cole should be criticized for misusing the term (and possibly contributing to the perpetuation of the association in America) is a separate issue from whether, understanding what his intentions were, it’s OK to essentially endorse the phrase under the posting rules.

83. I presume that those who are offended by Cole’s use of the term “Ayatollah” in this context are equally offended by Chris Shays’ (R-CT) comment today: “This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy.” Leave it to a Republican to bring the level of discourse to such a low level. After all, “theocracy” is certainly meant in an insulting manner here.

84. After all, “theocracy” is certainly meant in an insulting manner here.
    Only if you consider “unconstitutional” an insult.

85. I prefer the term “radical cleric” to describe folks like DeLay.

86. Hi again,
    No Edward, I don’t know you either but i have been reading ObWi for about a year and do not think of you as an anti-Muslim bigot which is why I did not call you one. I said you westerners have a very filtered way of seeing the world. Which, sadly, you do.
    I do think you are misunderstanding Cole as he has a wider frame of reference than you and it is not only Americans or Brits who read his weblog. He is also writing for an audience who do know things about Islam and don’t just have kneejerk stereotypes. He was making a very involved comparison of the way Islamic fundamentalists use the judicial sysetm against liberals. And he was comparing it to the way the Christian right is hijacking the Schiavo thing and bypassing the US system of checks and balances.
    When Cole uses the word Ayatollah he is using it in the sense of a religious leader getting himself involved in government. He is not necessarily using it because he knows that you people will automatically think of Khomeini and have a kneejerk pavlovian reaction to that – you know, not every blog writer thinks the world revolves around Americans’ blinkered and limited view of the world around them.
    I am liberal and believe in the value of secular government. I am against what fundies are trying to do. And believe me calling Tom Delay an ayatollah is no insult. It’s an apt analogy. When you paint it as an insult akin to that of Nazi you are really distorting not only what Cole’s sense of the word was, but instead of trying to fix the US blinkered attitude towards Muslims you are exacerbating it. Without meaning to, I am sure. I am just pointing out this for you to be aware.
    In any case I appreciate your concern for our (Muslims’) feelings in this matter and your restating of the update. I noted that commenter Macallan’s comments – he seems to think the word “ayatollah” is like the word “demon” and i just want to scream at him and many others, ONLY IN THE US – GET A GRIP – those who compared it to Archbishop were doing them a favor by sharing a higher form of knowledge and these people don’t want it, they just like to demonize a religion they see as alien and the enemy.

87. I heard part of a radio show last week (*arrgh* can’t find it now) where an Iranian woman who had been raised in the U.S. described her return to Iran and her shock at the corruption of the government-connected clergy. Her shock was not just at being sexually propositioned by “turban wearers” but at her family’s casual acceptance of the situation — to them it was the normal state of affairs.
    I guess I am just writing this to give some support to Anna in Cairo about the full meaning of Juan Cole’s designation of “Ayatollah Delay.” I think we do not fully appreciate the context. However, Juan Cole also seems to be both very smart and a fairly prickly sort of person, so I suspect he knew what he wrote would be provoking and intended it so.

88. I have to say that I’m impressed both at the update[2] and the process whereby both updates were obtained. Kudos.

89. I’d like to thank Anna for her comments, and for having the patience and generosity to come back and elaborate on them.

90. I hadn’t seen Anna’s comments until now, but agree with hilzoy. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate and share.
    I can see better where you feel Cole was coming from and agree that the American point of view is probably not his only consideration when writing.

91. I noted that commenter Macallan’s comments – he seems to think the word “ayatollah” is like the word “demon” and i just want to scream at him and many others, ONLY IN THE US – GET A GRIP
    Anna, I would like to recommend that you get a grip, and not distort what was said. I was very clear and specific. It was Cole’s direct comparison to the ruling ayatollahs in Iran. Let me repeat that. It wasn’t a comparison to ayatollahs in general, it was an unambiguous declaration: “Ayatollah Delay isn’t different from his counterparts in Iran.”
    Delay’s “counterparts” in Iran are the guys in Iran who have executed tens of thousands, imprisoned bloggers, tortured journalists, etc. etc., and for what horrible wretched act is Delay being compared to these dictatorial thugs? He helped pass a bill in a democratically elected representative body that sought to save the life of a single innocent woman.
    those who compared it to Archbishop were doing them a favor by sharing a higher form of knowledge and these people don’t want it, they just like to demonize a religion they see as alien and the enemy.
    No those were people who were trying to change the subject and ignore the actual point. You are completely off base and foolish in trying to make the claim that I am in any way demonizing Islam. I see it as neither alien nor the enemy, and have great respect for its faithful adherents. As the author of the original post (who disagrees with me on almost everything) can attest I have a long record of defending the Islamic faith and take great pains to separate the political actions of the few from the faith of the many.

92. I have a long record of defending the Islamic faith and take great pains to separate the political actions of the few from the faith of the many.
    Mac
    I’m not doubting this, but since everyone may not be familiar with your entire body of work on sites other than this, might I suggest that:
    There’s nothing eye-opening about that kind of puerile hyperbole. What’s next? Bush and Hitler parallels? Oh wait…
    is a bit too brief to relay your respect and admiration for adherents of the Islamic faith. :^)

93. is a bit too brief to relay your respect and admiration for adherents of the Islamic faith.
    Since it doesn’t deal with the Islamic faith in any way, its length doesn’t seem to be particularly germane.

94. There you go. I thought that the comment was related to what Edward posted, I see now that it was just phatic communication. Carry on.

95. No it was related to Cole’s rhetoric.

96. Mac, I also misunderstood your intent – glad I held my tongue.

97. Mac, I also misunderstood your intent
    In what way?

98. Thought you were dissing Edward à la lj.

Comments are closed.