Los Angeles Times - In a box delivered by rolling handcart on the morning of Feb. 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court received 40 copies of a petition so unusual a clerk decided he couldn't accept it for filing. First, though, he turned through its pages.

In a preliminary statement, he read these words: Three widows stood before this court in 1952. Their husbands had died in the crash of an Air Force plane. The lower courts had awarded them compensation. But the United States was bent on overturning their judgments, and – to accomplish this - it committed a fraud not only upon the widows but upon this Court.

Filed by a prominent Philadelphia law firm, this petition asked for an exceedingly rare writ of error coram nobis - an error committed in proceedings "before us."

Wow. All I can say is, wow. This Los Angeles Times feature on how the newly-named Department of Defense lied to the US Supreme Court to create an official legal recognition of unreviewable state secrets is incredible. If you've got 15 minutes today, you must read this. It continues tomorrow, and I know I'll be looking for it.

Kerry, along with every sane person in or formerly in government, has said that fighting terrorism is about reducing and removing anti-American bias around the world, about making sure kids don't grow up full of religious hate in extreme poverty, and about raising the bar for civilization everywhere. It's not mainly about bombing people we don't like.

Did he "repeat" this argument today on Meet the Press? Did he "reiterate" it, or "maintain" his position? Not according to Mike Glover of the Associated Press:

AP - Democrat John Kerry on Sunday accused President Bush of a "stunningly ineffective" foreign policy and stuck by his argument that the war against terrorism isn't primarily a military struggle.

[emphasis added]

Now, the dictionary definition is rather flattering:

to adhere with strict fidelity, sure reliability, and lack of modification or relaxation induced by temptation, convenience, or opposition - usually used with to

["stick." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (18 Apr. 2004)]

...but don't most people think of "stuck by his argument" as implying that he's staying with it despite it being discredited? It was the first thing I thought.