Smeal Spreads A Deliberate Lie About Roe
It may not be much of a news flash, I guess . . . but Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal is lying to her supporters about the danger that Justice O’Connor’s resignation poses to Roe v. Wade. I use the word “lying” because there is proof to back up that charge.
According to Brendan Nyhan, Smeal has written an e-mail to her supporters that says:
This is it! The worst has happened with the resignation of Sandra Day O’Connor. Let there be no mistake about it: Sandra Day O’Connor was the 5th vote that was saving Roe v. Wade.
(Via Michelle Malkin.)
Of course, as I reminded you the other day, the current lineup of the Court contains 6 votes to maintain the basic right to abortion created in Roe. O’Connor’s departure still leaves 5 votes on the Court to uphold Roe. I like Nyhan’s comment: “There’s nothing worse than people saying ‘Let there be no mistake’ and then making a mistake.”
Except that, in Smeal’s case, it’s not a mistake. When I learned that Atrios and Josh Marshall had made similar claims, I was willing to chalk it up to their general cluelessness. But Smeal lives and breathes this stuff. How could she possibly not know this?
Well, it turns out that, of course, she does. She has been quoted making the false “one vote away” claim before, of course — but she knows it’s not true. This article from March 22, 2004 proves it:
Political participation by students is more important than ever, said Smeal, with the fate of Roe v. Wade “hanging by two votes at best.”
The lineup at the Supreme Court hasn’t changed since March 2004; indeed, it hasn’t changed in 11 years. Eleanor Smeal knows full well that Justice O’Connor was not the “5th vote that was saving Roe v. Wade” — but she is lying to her supporters about it.
Look for more lies along these lines in the days and weeks to come.
UPDATE: Are lies like this having an effect? Ask Darcy Vernier of Marina del Rey. She wrote this letter to the editors of the L.A. Times, which was printed this morning:
Goodbye, Justice O’Connor. Goodbye, Roe vs. Wade. Goodbye, separation of church and state. Goodbye, civil liberties.
Darcy Vernier
Marina del Rey
The answer is yes. These lies are having an effect.
I’m not sure I’d use the l-word on this one. O’Connor was indeed the 5th vote that was saving Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Granted, it’s extremely disingenuous to say O’Connor was the 5th vote without also saying when, or how the SC lineup has changed since then, but a lie?
Xrlq (ffb240) — 7/6/2005 @ 8:36 amThey justify this by asserting that ANY change in abortion law at the SC is tantamount to repealing Roe.
Since it is likely that the new nominee will vote to uphold the partial-birth ban, making a majority, this crack in the wall is, to people like Smeal, the beginning of the end.
What they fear is not so much an outright reversal of Roe, but a drift into insignificance, where Roe still stands, but with legislatures having considerable leeway (rational-basis even?) in regulating abortions outside of the adult-women-1st-trimester core. This could well happen even without an additional vote.
I hope it does. Mainly because I don’t think Roe CAN be overturned — much as it’s non-Consitutional basis offends me — so I’d like to see it reduced as far as possible and then marginalized. But Smeal, etc, are not without their worry.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 7/6/2005 @ 8:48 amPatrick: Would it be technically correct to say that O’Connor was the fifth vote and Kennedy (or one of the other five pro-choice Justices) was the sixth vote? Having said that, I get your point.
steve sturm (e37e4c) — 7/6/2005 @ 9:48 amXrlq and Steve Sturm:
You guys have gotta be kidding me. I thought once we got rid of Bill Clinton, we’d also be rid of Clintonesque defenses to clear lies. Now I have to see such defenses in my comment threads?
By your logic, I wouldn’t be lying to say that O’Connor provided the 5th vote that saved MGM from having its copyrights infringed by Grokster. Sure, it was a 9-0 decision – but Kennedy’s was the 6th, Scalia’s was the 7th, Stevens’s was the 8th, and Rehnquist’s was the 9th . . .
Or, if you asked me how many points the Rockies scored against the Dodgers last night, I could say: oh, they scored only one run. It’s technically true, after all. Of course, then they scored five more, beating the Dodgers 6-1 – but at one point they had scored only one run.
Give me a break, guys.
Kevin:
They justify this by asserting that ANY change in abortion law at the SC is tantamount to repealing Roe.
Believe me, I understand how they justify it. I’m fully familiar with the dissembling of the abortion lobby. But asserting something that isn’t true doesn’t make it true.
If Smeal wants to say:
That would not be a lie. What she did say was a lie.
Patterico (3c2445) — 7/6/2005 @ 11:15 amYour analogy works in Steve’s case but not mine. O’Connor was the fifth vote to save Roe. It just doesn’t mean much anymore since Byron White, the fourth vote to kill Roe left the court a year later. That’s why we have separate words for “disingenuous” and “lie.”
Xrlq (ffb240) — 7/6/2005 @ 1:29 pmThis, by contrast, is a lie.
Xrlq (ffb240) — 7/6/2005 @ 1:48 pmThe Rockies scored only one run last night. It just doesn’t mean much because they scored five more to win the game.
Same thing.
Here’s the difference:
Potentially disingenuous, depending on context: “O’Connor was the fifth vote to save Roe.”
(That’s how you characterized Smeal’s statement in your previous comment.)
Lie: “This is it! The worst has happened with the resignation of Sandra Day O’Connor. Let there be no mistake about it: Sandra Day O’Connor was the 5th vote that was saving Roe v. Wade.”
(That’s what Smeal actually said.)
Another lie: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Patterico (1b53e9) — 7/6/2005 @ 1:50 pmThis, by contrast, is a lie.
No, I think that’s potentially just a boneheaded mistake — unless you can find me a documented instance of Josh Marshall showing on a previous occasion that he knew that two votes would have to change for Roe to be reversed. Like I did with Smeal.
(Every time I type that name, I think of Smeagol: “My right to partial-birth abortion. My preciousssss.”)
Patterico (1b53e9) — 7/6/2005 @ 1:54 pmPatterico:
You’re right, it was a Clintonesque defense of her comments. Clinton’s gone, but he’s not forgotten.
And I wasn’t defending her comment (my mama raised me better than that) or her counting skills, just hypothecating on what her response might be to your post. A public service on my part, one might say.
I agree that she’s the last person who wouldn’t know the real head count… I also think she wouldn’t have said what she did without giving herself an out…. maybe the Clintonesque out, maybe something along the lines of XLRQ’s comment, or something else altogether… but an out of some kind.
steve sturm (e37e4c) — 7/6/2005 @ 1:54 pmHer “out” is exactly what Kevin Murphy says. “If they ban partial-birth abortion, it’s really like they’re overruling Roe.”
The trouble is that there is 1) the issue of permissible restrictions under Roe, which has one head count, and 2) a genuine separate issue as to whether Roe should be overruled, which has a separate head count. People like Smeal give themselves license to call the first issue by the name of the second. But when they do that, it’s a lie, because they know that most reasonable people will interpret their comments to be relating to issue #2.
Patterico (1b53e9) — 7/6/2005 @ 2:03 pmIn fact, I take it back. “O’Connor was the fifth vote to save Roe.” is not disingenuous; it’s true. It’s just not what she said.
Patterico (1b53e9) — 7/6/2005 @ 2:06 pmNo, not the same thing, as the Rockies didn’t score only one run last night. A better analogy would be to say “the Rockies scored a run last night” or perhaps “the Rockies scored only one run” while conveniently neglecting to point out that you are talking about an earlier game where they did in fact score only one run. Assume a context where a clear, unambiguous reference to the earlier game would not have completely undermined the point you were making, but would have weakened it substantially.
Also another bad analogy. In that context, there was no ambiguity as to which woman he was talking about; in fact, the actual quote had the phrase “Miss Lewinsky” tagged on the end if memory serves. If he had truthfully said “I never had sexual relations with Ditzy Intern X,” while privately meaning that he did have them with Ditzy Intern Y, well, that there’d be different.
Xrlq (5ffe06) — 7/6/2005 @ 2:27 pmLast night at some point the Rockies had scored only one run. When I said “The Rockies scored only one run last night” I didn’t say when last night.
True, when most reasonable people say “The Rockies scored only one run last night” they mean that when the night ended and the game was over, the Rockies had scored only one run and no more.
But that’s applying common sense and looking at the way that most reasonable people would interpret the sentence. Which is not what you’re doing in this semantic exercise.
Gratituous ad hominem cheap shot: What industry do you work for again?
Look. Let’s try applying our common sense, just for the heck of it. When someone says:
they aren’t talking about the distant past. They are talking about the situation at the time of the resignation; hence the tense used in “was saving.” Any reasonable person would interpret it that way.
The Clinton quote *is* a good analogy, but you’re missing it, because you’re forgetting where Clinton parsed the words. His alleged “out” was not who he had been doing it with; it was what he had been doing with her. Clinton’s claim is that he was relying on an ultra-legalistic definition of “sexual relations” that bore no relation to the way most reasonable people would interpret what he was saying.
Sound familiar?
Patterico (1b53e9) — 7/6/2005 @ 2:42 pmThere’s another possibility you’re overlooking, Patterico; just like a bunch of lawyers to focus on the exact wording and miss the obvious.
Clearly, Ms. Smeal has received a private communication from Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying, “Eleanor, babe, the next time Roe comes before us — I’m voting to kill that sucker!”
See? So Smeal was telling the absolute truth!
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 7/6/2005 @ 3:01 pm(Thus we can conclude, with rigorous logic, that Justice Ginsburg has shrunk in office.)
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 7/6/2005 @ 3:03 pmYou’re probably right. I took Smeal’s use of the past progressive as a sign she was struggling with the English language, not as a sign she was referring to a general state of affairs as opposed to a particular case[y]. Assuming English is her native language, there’s probably a reason she said “was saving” rather than “saved.” I’m happy to lose this argument and concede Smeal is an out-and-out liar rather than a neo-Clintonian almost-liar.
I still think the Clinton analogy is wrong, though. Sexual relations means sexual relations; it doesn’t mean whatever Clinton wants it to mean. His subsequent “it isn’t really sex” rejoineder was not a clarification at all, just a lame attempt to cover up one lie with another. “Was the 5th vote,” by contrast, does not mean “was the 5th vote at a specific point in time.”
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 7/6/2005 @ 3:11 pmI’m having difficulty following you. I thought you conceded that, given the verb tense she used, reasonable people would understand her sentence to include the period of time when she resigned.
Patterico (1b53e9) — 7/6/2005 @ 3:38 pmI did. I just don’t the Clinton analogy works.
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 7/6/2005 @ 4:21 pmI don’t get why not.
I still think the Clinton analogy is wrong, though. Sexual relations means sexual relations; it doesn’t mean whatever Clinton wants it to mean. His subsequent “it isn’t really sex” rejoineder was not a clarification at all, just a lame attempt to cover up one lie with another.
In other words, he lied. Any defense he might have is based on a contorted view of language that no reasonable person could possibly accept.
“Was the 5th vote,” by contrast, does not mean “was the 5th vote at a specific point in time.”
Except that you concede that the way she put it, she did mean the 5th vote at the time of O’Connor’s resignation.
In other words, she lied. Any defense she might have is based on a contorted view of language that no reasonable person could possibly accept.
Patterico (756436) — 7/6/2005 @ 6:06 pm[…] Assuming she’s talking about women who would die during abortion procedures if the country reverted to the situation pre-1972, could this 5,000 figure be anywhere near correct? Or is Boxer — à la other far left propagandists (Patterico has another example here) — using the most incendiary rhetoric she can — the facts be damned? […]
Independent Sources » Blog Archive » Barbara Boxer and the Big Lie (4f7430) — 7/6/2005 @ 7:47 pmXrlq,
Do you admit defeat on the Clinton analogy too?
I am looking for a complete and unmitigated surrender. Nothing less will do.
Patterico (756436) — 7/6/2005 @ 9:44 pmI still have the same question: If the American public overwhelmingly supports “a woman’s right to choose” as we are consistently reminded by the “pro-choice” crowd, why are they affraid of allowing Roe to be overturned? This would simply send the issue directly back to the states where the majority would presumably legalize abortion rights almost immediately.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 7/6/2005 @ 9:44 pmSorry, your main point was right, but the Clinton analogy blows. The semi-innocent explanation of Smeal’s statement is relies on a meaning the words will bear. Clinton’s “I never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” does not – except maybe if you ascribe Rush Limbaugh’s interpretation, which was that he was addressing Miss Lewinskky, and assuring her that he’d never had relations with a different “that woman” – namely, Hillary. Under that reading, maybe.
Xrlq (158f18) — 7/6/2005 @ 10:45 pmThese perceptions long precede O’Connor’s resignation, and are born of observations from 4+ years of Bush.
I must say… I suppose one could technically parse here statements into a “lie”. On the scale of lies, however…. from “Saving social security” to Bush enabled Ca. Energy Crisis/Enron meltdown, and of course “bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq”, you exercise remarkable ablitity to find a speck in eyes filled with beams.
A cursory review of the affects left by Texas’s corp. bought and paid for Supreme Court (Gonzales/Owens etc.) speaks very loudly to concerns Smeal expresses. They’re the same, exact preceptions any half conscious non-Rush head who has paid any attention lately has.
But then, this is a red meat blog I guess… right?
JDM (889cc6) — 7/7/2005 @ 12:24 am[…] Those terrified that the Bush SCOTUS nominee will put an end to abortion rights enumerated in our constitution (have they not been paying attention? – Ed.) are already lying. […]
SayUncle : Lying to win (8b22b3) — 7/7/2005 @ 5:51 amA cursory review of the affects left by Texas’s corp. bought and paid for Supreme Court (Gonzales/Owens etc.) speaks very loudly to concerns Smeal expresses. They’re the same, exact preceptions any half conscious non-Rush head who has paid any attention lately has.
I’m happy to discuss any specific decision you might want to address — but I’m guessing that you’re unable to cite a single one. I’m familiar with the type.
Patterico (756436) — 7/7/2005 @ 6:35 amThe semi-innocent explanation of Smeal’s statement is relies on a meaning the words will bear.
I couldn’t disagree with you more.
Patterico (756436) — 7/7/2005 @ 6:36 amThen you’re missing something pretty basic. In a vacuum, “saved Roe” means “saved Roe at some unspecified point in the past,” and “was saving Roe” means “was saving Roe at the time something else happened, also at an unspecified point in the past. Smeal implied, but did not actually say, that that point in time was July 1, 2005. On the one hand, the past progressive suggests that the relevant event was her resignation. On the other, “was the 5th vote” as opposed to “would have been the 5th vote” implies she was talking about a case where the Justices actually voted on the issue, which of course they did not do on the day of her resignation. There is a phrase “sexual relations,” and that means something. There is no grammatical tense that means “did / was doing X as of July 1, 2005.”
Let’s try looking at this another way. First, do acknowledge that it is possible to be misleading, disingenuous or even outright dishonest without technically lying? If the answer is no, then this is a pointless debate over semantics. If it is yes, perhaps you’d care to give an example of something Smeal could have said which would have fit your definition of a misleading almost-lie, and explain why the two are different.
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 7/7/2005 @ 8:44 am“Justice O’Connor provided the crucial fifth vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. Without her, women would have been forced into back-alley abortions. Now that she’s gone, a woman’s right to choose is at grave risk.”
All true. Very disingenuous.
Not what she said.
Again, you conceded that, given the verb tense she used, reasonable people would understand her sentence to include the period of time when she resigned. Just like reasonable people would understand Clinton to have been including blow jobs in his denial.
It turns out there was a specific legal definition of “sexual relations” in the Paula Jones lawsuit, which under Clinton’s contorted reading excluded blow jobs. Doesn’t matter. Any reasonable person would have taken Clinton’s denial as what it seemed: a complete denial of sexual contact with Lewinsky. So, it was a lie. Just like Smeal’s statement.
You’re making me tired.
Patterico (b44f68) — 7/7/2005 @ 9:02 amI can’t make you beat a dead horse, and that’s what’s making you tired. Your own hypo is every bit as susceptible to “lie” charges as Smeal’s actual statement is. It’s probably not true that women would have been “forced” into back-alley abortions if Casey had gone the other way, but I’ll let that part go since it’s not so obviously false as to preclude a pro-abortionist from saying it in good faith. More fundamentally, as you’ve noted in this thread already, a woman’s right to “choose” (abort) is not in grave danger with O’Connor off the court unless by “right to choose” you meant not the traditional meaning (abortion rights generally) but the much more extreme “right to choose to murder a half-born, viable baby.” And if you assume that she meant the latter, while knowing full well that any reasonable listener would interpret it as a reference to the former, how is that any different from cleverly using the past tense to describe one point in the past while conveniently allowing readers to assume she referred to a more recent point in the past? The issue in both cases is exactly the same: a person says something which is true on one level and false on another, knowing full well that most or all listeners would interpret the technically true statement on the level that was not true, technically speaking or otherwise. If that makes it a lie, they’re both lies. If it doesn’t, neither is.
Ultimately, I think we are arguing semantics. My definition of “lie” is limited to statements that are literally false, and not just those that are technically true but carefully worded to allow or encourage false inferences. IOW, I think Dave Kopel was right to call his essay “Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11″ rather than the more intuitive “Fifty-nine Lies in Fahrenheit 9/11.” If I defined the word lie as broadly as you seem to, I’d say Kopel goofed and should have used the word “lie” instead.
Note that I am not attempting to draw any moral distinction between flat-out lies and calculated, technically-true deceits. Both involve deliberate deception, so as far as I’m concerned they as morally indistinguishable as larceny and embezzlement. My only point is that like larceny and embezzlement, the concepts are related but distinct. If anything, technically-true deceits are worse, as they’re equally harmful if believed but harder for the good guys to refute. If someone says something flat-out and demonstrably wrong, you can smack him down relatively easily, but if he says something Michael Mooreish that is technically true on one level, but calculated to be interpreted on another level, it’s much harder to respond crisply, and much easier to end up tongue-tied and saying something like “Well, yes, that’s sorta true, but not really, because, er… well, I know where you’re going with this and it’s a bunch of crap because you said this but meant that and … umm…”
Xrlq (e2795d) — 7/7/2005 @ 10:20 amI’m happy to discuss any specific decision you might want to address — but I’m guessing that you’re unable to cite a single one.
take your pick: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_151.pdf
I have +- 3 dozen others. The money trail behind Owens SCOST contributors an interesting story as well. It portends similarly to what’s unfolded in fed courts recently: UNITED PENSION FUND default, f:ex… and what that suggests for the remaining +- 98% of unfunded pensions that W’s constituency wishes to recieve similar fate. Seems these guys didn’t really pay in the way they had agreed. I guess that’s ok in bobo’s world. 🙁
Enron deja-vu.
I’m familiar with the type.
pffft.
You’re making me tired.
funny, I recall retired Sen. Thompson saying exact same thing when Ca. officials were trying to get his committee to act on alleged abuses in Ca. Energy thingie (which all turned out true). Just the thought of this stuff made the good Senator’s eyes get heavy. He called their pleas “whining”. $36b worth.
But hey… what’s a few $$b blue state ripoff compared to Bill’s blow job, right?
JDM (6f94c8) — 7/7/2005 @ 10:33 amtake your pick: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_151.pdf
I have +- 3 dozen others.
Why don’t you take *your* pick — make your own argument, with a cite to the actual case to show you’ve read it.
Patterico (b44f68) — 7/7/2005 @ 11:17 amX,
Someone could say that a woman’s right to choose is in grave danger if O’Connor is replaced by an anti-Roe conservative. The argument would be: now we’re only one vote away from losing the basic right to abortion. Whether that is grave danger is arguably in the eye of the beholder.
If Smeal had said what I proposed above, I wouldn’t be calling her a liar.
In the context I used the phrase, it would be a highly disingenuous thing to say. But not a lie. It would be calculated to mislead, of course — but once explained, a reasonable person could see the point.
Not so for Smeal’s actual statement. In context, the *only* reasonable interpretation is that O’Connor “was saving” Roe at the time of her retirement. There is no reasonable explanation she could give that is consistent with her language; any explanation would be so tortured as to defy common sense.
If you’re going to stretch to find her statement literally true, then so is Clinton’s (under his personal view of the legalistic definition) and so are my silly statements about the baseball team. All three are lies. To call them anything else requires the complete divorce of common sense from the analytical process.
It’s clear that we have different definitions of “lie,” but mine is not so broad as you suggest. My definition is simply a statement that is false, which cannot reasonably considered to be true even given the best explanation the utterer could offer. I feel quite confident that Smeal’s statement falls within that definition, if you apply common sense. By contrast, I define a “disingenuous” statement as one that, while perhaps literally true, conveys a misleading impression to most reasonable people. Like the hypothetical Smeal statements I gave above.
Patterico (b44f68) — 7/7/2005 @ 11:39 amHell, No, Roe Won’t Go
Patterico and I are debating whether Feminist “Majority” leader Eleanor Smeal’s recent claim that Sandra Day O’Connor was “the 5th vote that was saving Roe v. Wade” should be characterized as an outright lie, or me…
damnum absque injuria (38c04c) — 7/7/2005 @ 11:49 amI guess it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is. To say abortion rights are in “grave danger” now implies that depending on who replaces O’Connor, abortion rights may go away now, not that they’re merely in grave danger of becoming in grave danger. No reasonable person could interpret “my team’s victory is in grave danger” to mean “OMG, of course my team is going to win, but the other team might beat the spread!” Otherwise I could just as well argue that Angels’ lead in the AL West is in “grave danger,” as their 8 1/2 game lead could be reduced all the way down to 8 games mere hours from now, or even down to 7 as early as tomorrow.
If Rehnquist announces his retirement this summer, watch for version 2.0 of the “just one vote” lie/deceit, which will be to acknowledge that Roe is “just two votes” away from being overturned, and hammer home the message that President Bush is about to appoint two Justices, while conveniently overlooking the fact that only one of the two Justices being replaced is among those “just two” votes.
Xrlq (5ffe06) — 7/7/2005 @ 12:20 pm[…] Patterico and I are debating whether Feminist “Majority” leader Eleanor Smeal’s recent claim that Sandra Day O’Connor was “the 5th vote that was saving Roe v. Wade” should be characterized as an outright lie, or merely as a Michael Moore-ish deceit. Here’s the rub: O’Connor was the 5th vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case which, had it gone the other way, would have overruled Roe. But – and this is a big “but” – one of the four dissenters in Casey, Byron White, retired a year later and was replaced by the rabidly pro-abortion Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So while it was true in 1992 that we were “just one vote” away from overruling Roe, that only reamined true for one year, and the Court has been 6-3 ever since. [The other post-Casey personnel change does not affect this calculus, as it replaced one pro-abortion Justice with another – in this case, Roe author Harry Blackmun for Stephen Breyer.] […]
damnum absque injuria » Hell, No, Roe Won’t Go (38c04c) — 7/7/2005 @ 1:29 pmI guess it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Even though that comment is tongue-in-cheek, I hereby declare that your use of it operates as your concession of defeat regarding the issue of the applicability of the Clinton analogy.
Patterico (321af9) — 7/7/2005 @ 2:16 pmWhy don’t you take *your* pick — make your own argument, with a cite to the actual case to show you’ve read it.
oh, I’ve read ’em (an many more) all right. Aside from the abortion notification, her consistent evocation of non-existent trite exclusions to majority opinions awarding damages to business is the scary issue. And the one which I originally referred to (eg: “Goodbye, civil liberties.”) Her paper trail is vivid in this regard. As his her proteges and (massive) contributors.
Perhaps most offensive is her utter void of “strict adherence to the law”, as Junior so often spouts as his measuring stick: Owens is the poster child for rw judicial activism. She is Federalist Society graduate, bought and paid for and she acts like it.
I just read your Shiavo posts (Courts Got It Wrong/Mistake That May Cost a Life), and see it isyou not so versed in opinions on which you write. The Ad Litem alone strikes down most of your position.
So no, sorry… I get the feeling you’re spinning my wheels. You choose one. I’ve been down this road before w/a couple of winger “legal experts” on Yoo memos and am familiar w/this modus operandi.
(BTW: I like your (wordpress’?) “Live Preview”… good idea and nice touch.)
JDM (6f94c8) — 7/7/2005 @ 5:04 pmJDM:
You appear to be a lot better at calling people names (Junior, winger, insulting my blog as a “red meat blog”) than you are at coming up with a single specific criticism of a single specific case of Judge Owen’s.
By the way, the ad litem to whom you refer is just one guy with an opinion. A previous ad litem was very suspicious of Michael Schiavo’s motives. But it’s impossible to argue that issue with you, or any other, since you refuse to give specifics.
If you want to lob generalized insults, you have the right to do so — but don’t expect anyone to be impressed.
Glad you like the live preview.
Patterico (756436) — 7/7/2005 @ 5:55 pmThat, in turn, depends on what the meanings of “full” and “shit,” are, respectively.
Xrlq (158f18) — 7/7/2005 @ 8:03 pmIt seems to me that at the very least Smeal was attempting to hype O”conner’s retirement for political reasons (to give political cover to the Democrats for whatever outrageous efforts they might make to block an anti-abortion nominee or for fund raising purposes). My question over all of this Roe vs. Wade concern is: how many states had legalized the right to abortion? Was it 38 states? If so, doesn’t this fact make the whole issue rather mute?
john (8c7840) — 7/8/2005 @ 1:34 ampatterico @ 39;
You appear to be a lot better at calling people names (Junior, winger, insulting my blog as a “red meat blog”) than you are at coming up with a single specific criticism of a single specific case of Judge Owen’s.
there’s a litany of ’em with case number and synopsis in PFAW url, most w/same charatarization which I described… eg. giving pass to corp. malfeasance as a matter of principle, expressly contrary to GWB/rw stated desire of strict judicial adherance to law.
It speaks directly to your mocking of Nhyan’s statement (civil rights evisceration)in your original post, and multitude of links/examples paints a vivid picture. And as I’ve told you repeatedly, I have many more.
As far as “winger/red meat” and your sudden sensitivity to insults: go back and look at who flung this 1st in my conversation w/you.
This post of yours I responded to was red meat as it gets: riddled w/innuendo, short on fact, and suggesting a very small part is representative of a whole. The “affect” you empirically state she’s having long preceded her statement, going back before Roe/Wade… the issues remain the same.
Perhaps most juvenile, the vile enunciated by public advocacy groups posturing for influencing Junior’s selection has been coming from religious right, warning against appointment of “moderate”(Gonzalez?): there has been very little in media from left/liberal/dem visible groups. It got to the point W’ asked ’em to tone it down.
BTW, clear majority of USAsians in favor of woman’s right to choose.
By the way, the ad litem to whom you refer is just one guy with an opinion.
what utter crap… statements like that deserve “winger” moniker. From AL (purpose):
“…make a report and recommendations to the Governor as to whether the Governor should lift the stay that he previously entered. The report will specifically address the feasibility and value of swallow tests for this ward and the feasibility and value of swallow therapy. Additionally, the report will include a thorough summary of everything that has taken place in the trial court and the appellate court concerning this case.
(…)
The Guardian Ad Litem’s efforts have been to deduce and represent the best wishes and best interests of Theresa Schiavo.
(…)
The entire court file of thirteen years, including items of evidence, has been reviewed and studied, with particular attention given to decision points in the case history that are reflected in motions to and orders by the Court.
Jay Wolfson(AL) was selected by Jeb Bush. His AL is exhaustive, with many details from Schiavo’s case files, interviews w/care givers and summaries from he treatment/diagnosis records back to the beginning. AL explicitly addresses and contraverts the vile directed at husband through various rw talking heads. In particular, AL’s description of husband’s determination and insistince in gaining access to best alternative and/or experimental treatments well past point doctors advised it was hopeless: the caregivers described his commitment on her behalf as “exemplary” and well beyond call of duty(it’s all in AL link).
Jeb, Frist, Dobson etc. had full access to this prior to ramping up the rhetoric, but lied for their theatrical affects. You did in your posts as well, and imply more of same below.
It sucks. It really, really… really sucks.
A previous ad litem was very suspicious of Michael Schiavo’s motives.
I’m aware of no such AL: link please. Or maybe you refer to another one of those fake “nobel prize laureate” statements GOP trotted out through this sorry episode? I want to see your source: I don’t believe it.
Subsequent autoposy, review of case file (just reported to Jeb) specifically state there is/was no supporting evidence for what you imply. .. none. And let’s not forget Sen. Martinez’s memo, distributed to his caucus, saying Schiavo was great “political opportunity for us.”
Wingers in this sorry episode impugned honesty/integrity/motives of everyone in the process: judges (Cronyn’s “I understand the rage” in killing judges), the medical people (all proven correct in autopsy results: the woman was blind for krissakes), and husband. All have been fully exhonerated, yet not a peep of apolology.
And you continue with the lies.
The courts did exactly what they were supposed to do, in thorough and exemplary fashion.
Beyond that, while all this “culture of life” bs and significant disruption/pain at Shiavos’s hospice (and beyond)by Dobson’s “protestors”, Texas law has been operative 2+ years, initiated by Texas HC constituency and codified by their congressional republican leadership, giving state HMO/HC provider authority to “pull the plug” without consent or consideration of patient’s wishes, nor those of patient’s advocate: eg. pull the plug when the $$ stops. And it’s happened dozens of times.
Which, in case you can’t put it together, is more of same “charactar” of Owens’ decisions previously describe: it permeates GOP.
Of course after the polling started showing Schiavo not going over so well, Junior’s theatrics (flying to DC at midnight/gathering reporters on the tarmac for “culture of life” speach) ceased… completely!!! In fact, his comments on entire episode ceased. He later said he “really didn’t want to do it” (sign Frisk’s bill).
Please explain to me how these actions/positions are reconcilable, beyond concluding nothing other than grotesquely opportunistic grandstanding without regard or consideration to anything beyond immediate political expediency? They solved nothing. Frist denies statments he made on Senate floor (Shiavo responsive). Money required for care of those in Shiavo’s position (+- 11k at any given time in US) is not forthcoming, rather in fact less available through GOP legislation of recent years.
As far as Owens case goes, AFAIC you just don’t want to play. Pick one of those many and I’m happy to discuss. Otherwise, I’ve seen enough here. This exercise has run it’s course.
thanks.
JDM (6f94c8) — 7/9/2005 @ 12:52 pmthere’s a litany of ‘em with case number and synopsis in PFAW url, most w/same charatarization which I described… eg. giving pass to corp. malfeasance as a matter of principle, expressly contrary to GWB/rw stated desire of strict judicial adherance to law.
Right. Exactly what I said in my first comment to you: you are like every other leftist critic of Owen’s that I have encountered in that you are unwilling to take a specific case and make your own arguments. Instead, you just rely on links to PFAW and the like. We could have a battle of links (I see your PFAW and raise you a Byron York) but that’s lazy. If you are (like all the other critics) unwilling to make your own arguments, then I discount your criticism of Owen accordingly.
As far as “winger/red meat” and your sudden sensitivity to insults: go back and look at who flung this 1st in my conversation w/you.
I just did; that would be you with the “red meat blog” comment — your very first comment on the thread.
This post of yours I responded to was red meat as it gets: riddled w/innuendo, short on fact, and suggesting a very small part is representative of a whole. The “affect” you empirically state she’s having long preceded her statement, going back before Roe/Wade… the issues remain the same.
This is either totally lacking in specifics or just hopelessly inarticulate. Either way, I can’t tell what you’re saying. Smeal’s comment was the one that was short on fact; you have pointed out no inaccuracies in my post.
BTW, clear majority of USAsians in favor of woman’s right to choose.
Is that “U.S. Asians”? Or your unique way of saying Americans? I’ll assume the latter and respond: BTW, clear majority of Americans in favor of substantial restrictions on abortion that are disallowed by current abortion-rights jurisprudence. I have discussed that extensively on this blog.
I’m aware of no such AL: link please. . . .I want to see your source: I don’t believe it.
Somehow I didn’t think you were; you profess such extensive knowledge of the case, yet you had no clue about Richard Pearse and his conclusions. Here is his report.
And you continue with the lies.
I don’t like it when someone calls me a liar; back that up, take it back, or shut the hell up.
[skipping more incomprehensible rubbish . . .]
As far as Owens case goes, AFAIC you just don’t want to play. Pick one of those many and I’m happy to discuss. Otherwise, I’ve seen enough here. This exercise has run it’s course.
Who issued the challenge? Me. Who keeps ducking it? You. *You* pick the case and have the balls to make your own arguments, with a link to the case, and we’ll talk. You’d be the first leftist to do so; most posture like you have so far, and then run. I’m right here, waiting.
It’s s stupid exercise anyway, since she’s already a judge and there’s nothing you can do about it. But I’ll do it anyway, just to prove my point.
Patterico (756436) — 7/9/2005 @ 1:09 pmSorry, JDM, but when you chant empty slogans and cite to PFAW as though it were a credible source of information, you pretty much gave up the right to call anyone a “winger.” Contrary to liberal fantasy, there are actually two wings.
Xrlq (158f18) — 7/9/2005 @ 1:33 pmyou just rely on links to PFAW…
as mentioned, it’s short article (3 min. read) w/case #/name & links to decisions. It’s not and editorial piece, rather well citationed with references.
and the like.
1 link: no “and the like”, whatever that means.
Who issued the challenge? Me. (…) Who keeps ducking it? You.
(sheesh…) a 3 minute read would’ve avoided this petty stuff.
Owens is not the only one taking line I describe BTW… not by a long shot. Check any of the Federalist legal blogs(there’s many… some scholarly, and some just winger rants): they openly endorse the charactarizations I’ve made (seriously). WSJ OpED the same… most law school Federalist Society papers/blogs as well.
Same thing has occurred discreatly in international law as well: NAFTA chapt. 11, for example.
Regardless, a representative Meyers decison:
– Miles v. Ford Motor Co., 922 SW2d 572 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996)
Court Opinion is here
Concurring Opinion is here
Dissenting Opinion (Myers) is here
There’s a detailed Salon summary here, AP here, and Google archive here if previous 2 links don’t meet w/your sensabilities.
The charactar of her decision is as I said: finding a way to inhibit corp. liability on technicality and/or outside of law.
This case was on expedited track at request of both parties. Her decision invoked statute that had expired, as noted in appeal. Willie Searcy died when care givers just… left, because they couldn’t be paid. This, after appeal languished on her desk for 1+ year.
In her final remand for retrial, she sited a lapsed statute (overriden by GWB signed legislation), as noted in appeal.
Owens refused media requests to discuss this case during her recent hearings. Her decision (if you read records) was based on case being… “filed in wrong venue”.
From an article in The Texas Observer (same article published in Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle):
“Venue” was not among the issues–”or points of error”–the court said it would consider in Willie Searcy’s case. Venue was not briefed on the merits by Ford’s attorneys or by Willie Searcy’s attorneys. Venue was not mentioned in the oral argument on November 21, 1996. But the opinion Priscilla Owen wrote in March 1998 was based on venue.
Should you choose to review her cases, this “charactar” I describe is a consistent thread. The quotes from majority opinions in PFAW link repeatedly criticize her for ignoring statutes, and making arguments that would require “rewriting statutes”. This is in PFAW link w/Case #, links to decisions, and direct quotes from them.
WSJ OpEd, responding to much Owens criticism on Miles v. Ford in attempt to make the case she’s “mainstream”, said:
This story had a happy ending: Miles (Willie’s mother) won on appeal.
They didn’t mention this was after he died.
Is that “U.S. Asians”? Or your unique way of saying Americans?
It’s a common term, especially in europe and amongst various computer techs. The idea is term blurs cultural distinction, embracing the commonality of all those participating: useful, given the highly international collaborative nature of these disciplines.
Sorry if you took offense.
I’ll assume the latter and respond: BTW, clear majority of Americans in favor of substantial restrictions on abortion that are disallowed by current abortion-rights jurisprudence.
You defend your implied position by generalized wording: sneaky & evasive IMO.
If you break down those “in favor of substantial restrictions” to specifics, the majority support by category (eg: by trimester, “partial birth” etc.) reflects exactly what I said. Majority also advocates exception for the mother’s health in PB’s. And BTW, proposed by Clinton, and shot down by GOP. Hmmm…
If you conclude this is pro-abortion position, you are wrong: it is a pro-choice position, period.
The “substantial restrictions” are very much mischaractarized by GOP red meaters: parental notification, for example. Dems have repeatedly asked for exceptions where parental(usually father) abuse/rape is an issue, and have been willing to support such restrictions with this exception.
GOP reflexively says no. Hmmm…
Here is his report. & previous ad litem was very suspicious of Michael Schiavo’s motives.
Oh, I’ve read that one all right(there are 2 others BTW).
If you’ve investigated as you imply, you’re aware AL you cite was +6 yrs old. His “suspisions”, as you term them, have subsequently been assuaged… in voluminous detail, by rigourous court testimony and AL I cite.
*EVERY SINGLE ONE of ’em assuaged… decisively. If you think not, cite any one and I’ll respond.
Assuaged right down to Jeb’s last act ( accusation Michael inflicted and/or delayed medical attention for her initial heart attack) which concluded there was “no supporting evidence”.
A quick review of the timeline paints a clearer picture(there is one of many timelines on Home URL of you’re AL): summarized briefly…
– at jucture of your AL’s writing, husband’s devotion to her care are described by all as “exemplary”, “agressive advocacy” etc… right up to and past time of exhausting available alternative treatments
– Terry’s doctors conclude she is in a persistent vegetative state. I would put emphasis on that term: there are thorough laymans description here (wikipedia) and technical, medical explanation here.
I’d also point out your AL does not mention that husband’s relationships did not begin until after this diagnosis (vegetative): a very important distinction.
All testimony by those who treated her up to and past your AL agreed(eg: “vegetative”), and further qualified diagnosis as “hopeless”, “advanced”, and “severe”. The dissenters were all (excuse the expression) quacks w/no qualifications.
It’s interesting all the “christian” web sites that have sprung up since then with different definitions. It’s also interesting the autopsy confirmed the physicians diagnosis.
The nasty stuff (attacks against Michael) began just before your AL: a series of lawsuits, followed by stays for terminating her feeding…
all based on various accusations against husband, and claims of her sentience. 6 of these led to thorough court review, with increased focus/testimony on issues raised. Every single one was shot down. All of ’em… without exception.
Your AL’s issues (and beyond) were exhaustively and repeatedly put under scrutiny. And, as your AL said re: Michael’s claim of Terry’s wishes: (summary) if other witnesses came forth agreeing w/husband’s claim “pulling the plug” was her wish, he would agree that would be proper.
That happened.
Taking you at your word (eg. saying you’re LA attorney), surely you understand development of court record since your AL, and it’s thoroughness. For you to cite this AL’s “suspicions”, long since convincingly put to rest, as your primary take on things strikes me as quite disingenuous.
That you fail to comment on any of GOP shenanigans I mentioned… Sen Martinez’s memo, Fritz statement and subsequent denial of
it (a lie), all the Dobson stuff etc, attack on involved judges (who did follow the law… to a T) and fact GOP legislation has consistently been contrary to their proclomations in this circus event… it sucks.
I’m 100% unimpressed or persuaded by your claims. Nothing has been settled, and many with far more realistic chance than Schiavo are already scheduled to have their plug pulled via
GOP sponsored legislation. You ignore large body of convincing evidence to agree w/conclusion popularized by a fanatical hate campaign from “christian” advocates with no supporting evidence.
Tell me, what was purpose of Schiavo exercise? What is the principle involved? Did GOP Shciavo advocates further this principle (if one exists), or rather exploit a tragedy?
What is your opinion of future corrective measures (and please, not a rant about evil husbands)? Who pays the bills?
I sypathize will all primary parties: it’s a tough situation all the way around. I feel sad that parents were unable to let go, and deluded themselves (she was gone). I feel worse they allowed themselves to be exploited by Randall Terry and the like.
And it angers me greatly that all these “culture of life” folks have gone after Michael with a vengence, making up stuff along the way (“Terry sees me!!!”), all 100% unapologetic now that there’s certainty of her condition and definitive conclusions there’s no evidence for accusations levelled.
It sucks.
JDM (87742d) — 7/11/2005 @ 3:25 pmXrlq @ 44:
Sorry, JDM, but when you chant empty slogans and cite to PFAW as though it were a credible source of information, you pretty much gave up the right to call anyone a “winger.”
how utterly appropriate, in a thread discussing whether or not GWB’s nominees threaten civil rights, you conclude citing PFAW surrenders them.
Anyway, as I said, PFAW link quotes case #, majority/minority opinions, and provides links to same.
Contrary to liberal fantasy, there are actually two wings.
cute.
Doesn’t really address the absurdity of Patterico’s assertions, however.
And it doesn’t speak to the larger, almost mindboggling GOP malfeasance: it’s surreal. To think of rescources/money GOP consumed going after Clinton and subordinates (trivialities) in the name of “personal responsability”, compared to what’s going on now: Rove(and ????)>>> Plame, Coingate ($30m + diverted from state Workman’s compensation to political cronies, and covered up), AbramhoffDelayRalph Reed permeating seemingly all levels of GOP congressional lawmaking/campaign donations etc., the $8b + CPA $$, distributed in paper bags, gone up in smoke w/no accounting, not to mention WMD lies…
Honestly, these guys aren’t conservative in any sense: they’re crooks. I’m continuously amazed that anyone supports them in any way… they belong in prison.
JDM (87742d) — 7/11/2005 @ 3:42 pmThat’s a lot of words to say: “I’m not rising to the challenge.”
Which I predicted at the outset.
Patterico (f325a0) — 7/11/2005 @ 4:05 pmpatteric @ 43:
I attempted to post response to your…
– request of Owens case example (which I cited w/refs)
– abortion obfuscations
your site choked on them. I assume you haven’t blacklisted me (yet), as it accepted #45. Maybe you’re site is having problems?
I saw no contact info here, so… if you give notification to my email (yahoo account in my profile is valid) I’ll post ’em.
“If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for us.”
Miriam Amanda “Ma” Ferguson (1875-1961)
Governor of Texas (1925-1927, 1933-1935)
From speech advocating barring foreign language teaching.
JDM (87742d) — 7/11/2005 @ 4:09 pmThat’s a lot of words to say: “I’m not rising to the challenge.”
as mentioned, your site choked… 2 attempts posting Meyers case example went “poof”!
Perhaps you have problems w/Firefox? (some rendering is off here: overlapped text in several places)
Which I predicted at the outset.
JDM (87742d) — 7/11/2005 @ 6:00 pmpffft… send me an email address, & I’ll mail .txt file/response to do with as you please.
No blacklisting, though I did have server problems earlier in the day. If you have it all saved, try posting it again. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Patterico (756436) — 7/11/2005 @ 6:44 pmJDM,
I found the problem. Your comment went into automatic moderation, probably because it had so many links, and looked like spam to my spam blocker. I have authorized two of the comments that seemed slightly different.
Normally I can authorize such things more quickly, when I have my Treo — but it just died on me.
Patterico (756436) — 7/11/2005 @ 7:37 pmI’m going to delete the second post; upon closer examination, it completely repeats the first portion of the first.
Then I’ll respond to your post.
Patterico (756436) — 7/11/2005 @ 8:07 pmOK, JDM:
First, I am going to refer you to the comments in this thread. Lazy linking by Patterico without argument? Mmmm . . . not really — because I’m linking my own arguments. See, I have debated this very case before.
Don’t worry, I’m going to specifically respond to your arguments — but I’m going to do some cutting and pasting from my previous comments, since I have debated the same issue before.
I have previously read the Salon summary you cite, as well as the Texas Monthly article upon which it relies. I just wanted to know what you found convincing about it/them.
As I understand your specific complaints, you have two:
1) Venue was not among the specific issues the Texas Supreme Court said it would review when it took the case.
2) The appeal “languished on her desk” for over a year.
As to point #1 (I warn you there is cutting and pasting from my previous argument here):
You suggest that it was bizarre for Owen to address venue. But Ford had raised the issue in the trial court. The dissenters express no surprise at the issue being raised; indeed, they seem to agree that venue was the critical issue. Courts often raise such issues on their own without the parties briefing them; indeed, they are required to.
The majority’s venue decision (Owen didn’t rule on the case by herself, you know) certainly seems reasonable. The accident happened in Dallas County. The plaintiffs resided in Dallas County. The plaintiffs sued in Rusk County, because that’s where the dealership was located. Ford’s motion to transfer venue to Dallas County was denied.
Lawyers in Texas, where venue-shopping is a big deal, know that if they try to manipulate venue, the case will be reversed. But the lawyer did manipulate venue, and admits it. He says he filed suit in Rusk County because “[d]ockets in Dallas were backed up” and he wanted a quick resolution. It was a strategic gambit that backfired. The Texas statute governing venue didn’t allow it under these circumstances.
As to point #2:
The articles you cite suggest that Owen unnecessarily delayed. What’s the basis for this? Unidentified law clerks who (at a minimum) violated confidences to their judges? Newsweek would be proud of such unreliable anonymous sourcing.
Through clever language, the articles make it sound like Owen was somehow responsible for the 3-year delay after the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case. She took a few months to write the decision, but the timeline of the case shows that most of the delay happened elsewhere in the Texas court system. Also, the article makes Ford (not Owen) sound like the major player delaying the case — contrary to your suggestion above that both sides sought expedited review. A lawyer for Searcy “filed an affidavit describing Ford’s promise to delay a final resolution of the case as long as they could.”
So much for that case. I’ll respond to the rest of your post (re abortion) in a separate comment. Though I do have other things to do with my life, you know.
Patterico (756436) — 7/11/2005 @ 8:23 pmJDM,
The Schiavo portion of your comment . . . well, I assume you’ll admit it’s rather disjointed. I’ll try to respond as best as I can, but again, I have other things to do (like a Michael Connelly book to read), plus, if you simply search “Schiavo” on this blog you can read my opinions about the case until our eyes bleed.
You repeatedly say that the guardian ad litem whom I cite had his opinions “assuaged” (whatever that means) by a later ad litem. First, you need to understand that I don’t accuse Michael Schiavo of murdering Terri Schiavo by putting her in the coma to begin with — nor do I understand Pearse to have made any such accusation. My concern (and Pearse’s) was that Michael Schiavo came up with his declarations regarding Terri Schiavo’s alleged wishes quite late in the game, when he suffered from financial and emotional conflicts of interest.
Wolfson had his own rather rosy opinion of Michael Schiavo’s motives, and cited some persuasive evidence for this, such as Michael Schiavo’s efforts to rehabilitate her early on. Pearse had a somewhat less rosy opinion of Michael Schiavo, and cited some persuasive evidence of this as well, including the aforementioned conflicts.
I happen to think Michael Schiavo, while not a murderer, is a wholly self-absorbed and selfish individual. I have written about this extensively and I invite you to peruse the archives for the proof.
I am not particularly religious and I never went for the more outlandish claims about Terri Schiavo. I never thought she would get up and walk and talk. I had some hope that, with therapy, she might learn to swallow on her own. Perhaps she could have, early on — but the autopsy showed she couldn’t have, at the end.
You have already read my post about how (in my opinion) the courts got it wrong. You have not articulated a good argument to the contrary; hardly anyone did, though the post occasioned almost 300 comments.
What would I like to see happen in the future? It’s all set forth here. In a nutshell: a reasonable doubt standard for ending the lives of people who have left no written directive, when close relatives strongly dispute what their wishes would have been; trial by jury, not a probate judge; and no death by potentially painful dehydration.
Now, if you’ll pardon me, I have a book to read.
Patterico (756436) — 7/11/2005 @ 8:36 pmNo blacklisting,
…
I found the problem. Your comment went into automatic moderation(…)I have authorized two of the comments that seemed slightly different.
I tried posting…
– 1 long one: when that failed…
– broke it into 2 (1 for each of 2 topics). when that failed…
– tried trimming both ’till I was sure it wasn’t a max-char restriction.
The 2 you let through are redundant and confusing in current form. Suggestion: kill ’em both, and I’ll repost ’em tomorrow.
Thanks for making an effort… gives me hope for you guys!!!
JDM (74f266) — 7/11/2005 @ 9:27 pmThe one I authorized was the first long one. No need to repost, as long as the first post was what you wanted to post. (I deleted the second, redundant one.)
I’m going to leave up the first long one because I already responded to it.
If you post any further, just understand that long comments (especially those with five or more links) must be moderated, which could take until the evening.
Patterico (756436) — 7/11/2005 @ 9:42 pmAh, but she would have if John Kerry had been elected President! Or maybe that was Christopher Reeve, I always get those two mixed up.
Xrlq (158f18) — 7/11/2005 @ 9:43 pmYeah — I always get Xrlq mixed up with John Edwards.
Patterico (756436) — 7/11/2005 @ 10:23 pmI think it’s fair to say that JDM cut and run once he ran into someone knowledgeable and willing to debate the actual decisions.
No surprise.
Patterico (756436) — 7/30/2005 @ 4:35 pm