More from Tim Blair, including a link to Ralph Nader's position. (It gives me a bit of pause to be on the same side of an issue as Ralph Nader these days, but no more so than Terry Randall, I guess.) (Is this another example of the Moronic Convergence?)

Andrew Sullivan is the latest to claim that the "support Terri Schiavo" conservatives are hypocrites because they presumably believe in the "sanctity of marriage" while not respecting Michael Schiavo's claim to know his wife's wishes. Like most pundits who bring this up, Andrew conveniently leaves out the relevant fact that Michael Schiavo has left the marriage in all but name. This is an understandable way to behave in this situation, but the guy has a conflict of interest, to put it mildly. In this country we don't give husbands life or death power over their wives, or children, for that matter. There are also abuse and neglect laws. Hell, if children make lots of money we even have laws to make sure their parents can't squander it. Just because they are legally married doesn't mean the state gives up all interest in how she is treated.

For the record, I am in favor of gay marriage. And I hope Andrew never lies brain-damaged in a nursing home while his husband moves in with a new lover, while still claiming to knows best what Andrew would want.

Deborah Saunders:

I've followed this poignant case for two years. And my husband served at one time as an unpaid informal adviser to the Schindlers. I've heard the arguments, and they often start with: No one would want to live like that.

After all, this case is supposed to be about Terri's "right to die," even though no one knows for sure that she wants to die. She never wrote a living will or other document asserting as much. A court decided that she would want to die, based on casual remarks she made to her husband Michael and his brother and sister.

She told them she would never want to be kept alive by machines.

I hate to insert facts here, but it is a fact that a feeding tube is not a machine.

Yet somehow the courts found that those casual comments have the force of a legal document -- and apply to a feeding tube, when they were meant for a respirator.

Ann Althouse on the legal aspects of the Congressional statute. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to me like the Schiavos didn't get any traction with the federal court because of a technicality in the way the statute was written. Is that the gist of it?

Related thoughts from Karol:

One of the more amazing aspects of the Terry Schiavo case is the fact on display that the president of the United States, by some accounts the most powerful man in the world, can't pull any strings to save this woman's life. Those who worried that Bush was going to declare martial law and cancel elections, and even those who talk with a wink and a smile about the privileges of power, should be able to see clearly that America is a country where the president does not have any power he wants.

That is a good talking point to the "Bush=Hitler" crowd, but the price is painful.