Redstate

How a court does.

I'm not sure harm gets more irreparable than death.

.

Her parents do not have to prove that her life is worth sustaining...her parents have to prove that her rights, either constitutional or statutory, have been violated.

Interesting to note that the dissenting judge was a very liberal clinton appointee.

the best argument and also demonstrate the absolute futility in the legal claims filed in federal court.  I don't think that Judges Carnes or Hull would have withheld an injunction if there was any hope of success on the merits.  

I can't tell you how disgisting I find it when "conservatives" start pushing for judges to rule how they personally feel on an issue without regard to the proper merits of the case.  

But it is how secularized societies come to operate.

...position.  We do not care how a judge feels personally.  We want judges always to decided on the side of innocent human life.

Although emotional, emotion plays no part in the presumption that Terri Schiavo deserves to live.

You personally want the judge to always rule a certain way regardless of what the law says.  That you really don't care if the judge has to completely ingore the application of the law, you want him to rule a certain way on this case.  Its the same as liberals wanting judges to always rule in favor of abortion rights regardless of what the proper application of the law is.

when the law provides no basis for doing so?

to rule in accordance with his own political beliefs rather than the law and an impartial observation of how the law applies to a particular case? Rememeber that the next time a liberal judge stays a last minute execution in order to hear some claim of innocence that has been thoroughly trounced by all the lower courts.

Here are some specific questions you must go through to evaluate the various judicial decisions.

1. Does a person have the right to refuse medical care, including a feeding tube, even if that means they will die as a result?
   
2. Does the person have the right to have such a medical decision respected even after they can no longer communicate with others at all?
   
3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, must such an advance decision be made only in writing, or should we allow other evidence of that person to be considered as well?
   
4. If your answer to question 3 is yes, sometimes other evidence should be considered, what burden of proof should be used by a court to determine what those wishes are?

The answers to these are, I think, pretty straight forward, at least for me.

1. Yes, every human being has a right to decide whether to allow other human beings to invade his or her body with medical procedures, and every (mentally competent) human being has the right to refuse any medical treatment at all, no matter the consequences. If this were not the case, there would be nothing stopping society from forced organ donation at the end of life, and somebody could decide to keep us stuck on a machine for years, strapped to a bed in agony no matter what we ourselves wanted.
   
2. Yes, assuming the person was competent when they made the decision, for the same reasons as number 1.
   
3. This is where some of the recent laws have been aimed at. But it's a true fact that many people never get around to signing a normal will, much less a "living" one. People don't like to deal with such issues, and so they often don't until it is too late. What if I told my spouse the day before the really bad wreck that I was terrified of being stuck on a ventilator or being in a coma, and I didn't want to artificially prolong my life in any way after it became clear that I was never going to be able to communicate with other people again. Imagine I tell my spouse and 2 friends that on the same day, and am very clear about it. Should my wishes be denied simply because I didn't run to the lawyer the second I had that thought?

Of course, the answers to all of these questions are already well-settled law. This is not the first time the courts have had to grapple with this issue. The only question is how to apply that law to the facts of this case.

The answer to #4 is also settled, in Florida. A court must determine the patient's wishes by "clear and convincing evidence". This is the standard between a "preponderance" (51%) of evidence and "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's not terribly easy to meet.

If you answer all of these questions in accordance with existing law, then you don't think Congress should overrule the law, just that you and Congress should substitute your own review of the facts (which most of you and Congress have not actually done) for that of the courts, who did look, in detail, at all the actual testimony, videos, and expert reports involved in this case.

Crying over conservatives rooting for judges who support their views is crying over spilled milk.  The process of judges remaining objective (if that ever existed) was tossed by the wayside when they decided to become much more activist in how the law was interpreted.  Quite often, the "merits" of the case were subjected to the individual beliefs or thoughts of the judge.  That is how we ended up with Roe v. Wade.  This is the legacy that they have left us with and a reality we cannot escape nor chose.  In a perfect world, your appeal to principle would carry weight with me.  But, we don't live in a perfect world, and the process of bastardizing the role of the judiciary has, unfortunately, brought us down this road.    

And where you go badly wrong is that you think that to right the situation conservative judges should start being as insturmentalist as liberal judges have been.  You want to right the situation cosmically instead of understanding the best situation is to just put judges in place who will rule on the merits.  You are seeing this as a tug of war where you want retribution for what the liberal judges have done.  All I want is a level playing field and a conservative judge applying person preference is as bad as a liberal judge doing so.

great post!  Lucikly, that is exactly what we got in this case.  Judges Carnes and Hull are very conservative and moderate, respectively, and did the right thing under the law.

One of the things that I have always thought was funny about the "liberal judicial activist" tirades we always hear is that they seem to presume that if you removed all "liberal judicial activists" from the bench, all of the outcomes would be different.  It is always heartening to see examples of very conservative judges (and very liberal judges) making the hard calls that the law mandates, even if it adverse to their underlying personal ideals.

We don't care how judges feel personally, so long as they agree with us.  Isn't that what you accuse us liberals of doing?  Maybe this will finally tear the shroud on the damnably holier-than-thou position that conservatives just want to follow the letter of the law.  I'm not holding my breath, though.

... provide for forcing a woman to starve.  That is the only application of force in the case.  The judge ordered her to starve, and she is starving.

There is a police guard outside her room preventing her family from bringing food or ice chips to her.  Her priest was not allowed to administer the Eucharist to her; to a Catholic, this is not a mere religious custom of belief.

The district court judge rules that if the Schindlers could not prove that they were going to win their case, before they were even allowed to argue it, the forced starvation had to continue.  The appeals court ruled, 2-1, that this was fine.

This is not a matter of law.  In our system of governance, it is Congress which make law, to be signed by the executive.  The courts were never supposed to fill this function.

On many levels this situation is a major attack on conservatism.  And too many "conservatives" are standing around and letting liberals define the term for them.

Welcome to the atrocity exhibition.

the law provides for the withholding of medical care.

"The district court judge rules that if the Schindlers could not prove that they were going to win their case, before they were even allowed to argue it"

That's how preliminary injunctions and TROs work in our system of law.

"On many levels this situation is a major attack on conservatism. "

How is this an attack on conservatism?

 

all conservatives together.  There are many that feel that the judges are ruling correctly and that it is outrageous to try to legislate a particular result in a specific case.  I have heard many prominent conservatives speak out on this in the past few days.  

The "holier-than-thou position" has already been torn off the folks who scream up and down about following the letter of the law until the letter of the law disagrees with the outcome that they want.  Those folks are easy to spot a mile off.  They wants results, not process...and all Congress gave them in the law on Sunday night was process, not results.

Um, since when have judges not been instrumentalist??? As everyone here knows, courts have the ability to nullify or create laws simply by a wave of the judicial fiat wand. This is merely recognizing reality. You can cling to your idealistic hope that judges will act objectively, but, as you correctly point out, horrendous decisions have been handed down that have resulted in awful social policy. Simply hoping that some judge will recognize the underlying moral issue at hand here is apparently too much. Life be damned, the process must be honored - at all costs.    

all of those who are now so enthusiastic for hewing to the letter of the formalities of the legal process to identify the moment of legal "original sin" - that point in time at which, suddenly, a tradition of formalism went off the rails when judges started ruling according to personal readings of the situations.

I think that most of these complaints mistake for an historical accident something that is part of the basic human condition - something that has always been, and always will be.

does provide for this situation to occur.  You can disagree with that law and say there should be a federal law about this (although the whole "states rights" would seem a bit opportunistic then) but you can't say the judges are activist or that conservatives are under attack just because you don't like the law as it is written.  Balme that on the original authors, not the courts.

It looks to me like the two-judge majority contained a Clinton appointee and a GHWB nominee.  The dissenter was a Clinton nominee.

The GHWB appointee in the majority is very conservative, the Clinton appointee in the majority is moderate to conservative and the Clinton appointee who dissented is very liberal.

Where did you hear that she was denied Communion?  If that is so, it is clearly a violation or her Constitutional rights and a complete outrage.  But what's your source for this information?  

Is your whole argument.

Terri Schiavo deserves to live but unfortunately she is already dead as the courts and the medical profession have already determined.  That's essentialy what a persistent vegetative state means.  Her parents are the ones with the, not unreasonable in the circumstances emotional response, that Terri is still alive or has prospects for partial recovery or improvement.

Essentialy you are arguing that the emotional needs of the parents trump both the medical professions considered opinions and the legal authorities exhaustive determinations as to Terri's own wishes.

And this is from the same 'culture of life' that signs off without demur on the killing of thousand of foreign brown people or the potential hundreds of innocent death row inmates, all for the greater good.  Appaling.

Among many other places.

I understand that Greer issued that ruling ore tenus. I haven't seen the ruling reduced to paper (which does not mean it has not been), but I understand this to be the universally agreed upon truth.

. . . characterizations, however it does reinforce the point that you can't always tell how a judge will come down on a particular issue based on who it was that appointed him or her.

And Wilson's dissent argued in favor of the Shindlers to have the court compel the reinsertion of the feeding tube under the All Writs Act, as per Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who filed a "Statement of Interest" with the court!!

Things don't get much stranger than this.

Andrew McCarthy at NRO:

Although they recoil at the very notion, it is a fact of constitutional life that judges are essentially supposed to take their marching orders from congress -- which both prescribes laws and defines the jurisdiction of federal courts. Here, Judge Wilson observed, the plain intent of the law Congress passed

is to maintain the status quo by keeping Theresa Schiavo alive until the federal courts have a new and adequate opportunity to consider the constitutional issues raised by Plaintiffs. The entire purpose of the statute was to give the federal courts an opportunity to consider the merits of Plaintiffs' constitutional claims with a fresh set of eyes. Denial of Plaintiffs' petition cuts sharply against that intent, which is evident to me from the language of the statute, as well as the swift and unprecedented manner of its enactment. Theresa Schiavo's death, which is imminent, effectively ends the litigation without a fair opportunity to fully consider the merits of Plaintiffs' constitutional claims.

He is, of course, right about that. And in a case where, again and again, it has become clear that terrorists seeking to kill Americans are given a far better deal in our courts than a defenseless woman convicted of no crime, how fitting it is, once again, that we meet the All Writs Act.

And this is coming from a person who has struggled to see Michael Schiavo's perspective in all this (I won't use the term "devil's-advocate" which I think is waaaaaay to loaded here) that the clergy is now being actively prevented by the courts from assisting a defenseless person.  

with the characterizations?  You can probably point to some decisions by Judge Hull that fall more on the liberal side, but I'd refer you to the Mendoza case (sexual harassment) that she wrote to support my characterization of her as a moderate/conservative.

To people like me, its bad for the country when a judge ignores the law no matter whether it is a conservative or a liberal.  A judge puts his personal preference in place of the constitution and it makes our society more dependant on the whim of judges in the future.  You think that its necessary to undo the damage that liberal judges have done by conservatives repsonding in kind.  To me it is just a downward spiral where what the voters want becomes more and more irrelevant.  To you when a judge ends up at the end result you agree with it is out of hand a good thing.  To me it is just the systematic destruction of the consitution.

. . . I'm just saying that I don't know enough about the judges in question to determine whether your characterization of their respective ideologies are how I would define those ideological positions.  As you yourself have correctly noted, there are many of us on the "conservative" side who think the court made the right call and who are abhorred that the "fair weather federalists" have decided that the federal government should intervene in what is clearly a State issue.  There are also many (more) here who call themselves "conservative" because they think it means achieving particular outcome that they find desirable regardless of how it is achieved - something that we have (rightfully IMO) criticized "liberals" for wanting to do.

As far as the judges in question, all I'm saying is that I don't know what benchmark you're using.  Too often IMO (and I'm not suggesting this is you) the benchmark seems to "how often did so-and-so side with the Plaintiffs (or Prosecution) over the Defendants in a Civil (or Criminal) Case" or "did they issue a ruling that helps (or hinders) my favorite cause" without much regard for what the law says and/or the manner in which they came about their ruling.  I think that former is what's driving the debate over the court's ruling (as well as judicial nominees but that's another topic).

Given the recent statements by nurses and doctors who have treated Terri, including their affidavits which were apparently ignored by the judge in 2003, enough evidence exists, however circumstantial, that her husband did not have her best interests at heart.  Further, there is a strong liklihood, given their testimony and the facts surrounding the circumstances of her collapse, that a criminal investigation should ensue.  We have been fooled by people like Michael, with the help of the media, many times in the past.  Whether Terri lives or dies, an investigation should be ordered.  If her husband is culpable in this, how would these people who are condemning her to death feel then?

I'm basing it on my personal experiences with the judges in question with Judge Wilson being the one that I've had the least contact/experience with.

But it's shades more than hard changes. I think you're more or less on target.

Do you have a source for any of this? Lots of stories are circulating in this story, but I haven't seen anything implicating Michael in her collapse that is more than internet stories.

In fact there's just the opposite. The court appointed temporary Guardian Ad Litem was pretty effusive in his praise for Michael's devotion and attempts in the first years at rehabilitation. As was Judge Greer and the appeals court.

Law enforcement really haven't been interested in the foul play aspect (long term abuse, the choking charge, secret insulin injections). Any thoughts why if it's so obvious what happened? People are calling for the resignation of Crist, the FL Attorney General because he hasn't gotten involved in this aspect. Any thoughts why he's limited himself to a few bland statements?

Inflammatory statements can whip up the base, but really poison the debate. It's unfortunate that's the route way too many people have taken.

There are those pesky other elements besides irreparable harm...

If you think they did not follow the law then I would be glad to hear your reasoning (and I because of my own biases I am hoping you can provide some insight).  

That Terri Schiavo, from the reports I've read, was bulimic and apparently was engaging in a self-motivated regime of extreme weight loss prior to her cardiac arrest.  

I know several feminists who would point to this and immediately blame Michael Schiavo and, moreover, Society as a whole, for imposing upon her an unrealistic and unnatural standard of beauty that she was attempting to live up to with her dietary habits, and that she in fact suffered from a "body image" pathology.

I concur.

Consider for a moment that you do not know what Terri Schaivo's husband or parents would do if granted medical proxy.  Would it change your decision of who best speaks for her?

Remember that blindfolded lady holding the scales?  She doesn't know what the litigants will do. She can only judge the case based on consideration of the law.  In this case, Florida law clearly states

the legal husband (as if anything else mattered?) is the proxy.  This was upheld TWENTY times in Florida State Courts.

Imagine for a moment that instead of consideration of the law, judges ruled by emotion, personal morality, and their opinion of the litigants.  This appears to be what Republicans are promoting; it is a recipe for chaos, not a civilized society.

Those feminists' claims may or may not be valid (certainly there's at least some truth in them-- it would be fatuous to argue that eating disorders do not have a social component).

But does this question have anything to do with the legal or even the ethical issues of the case?  

Do you, Kowalski, believe that a wife's bulimia is indicative of her husband's culpability?

evidently were considered and were considered not to be credible.  Although, I would recommend you listen to Michael Savage today...he has been frothing at the mouth over this and advocating that Michael Schiavo be brought up on murder charges and U.S. Marshalls be called in to rescue Terri Schiavo from the Nazi death camp hospice.  

Evidently now not only is Michael Schiavo responsible for Terri's condition, but he has been actively trying to kill her since she has been in a vegitative state.

Your argument is fine.  It's just you refuse to recognize the reality of the world in which we live, which is judges always have and always will inject their personal preference into their decicision(s).  The notion of an impartial adjudicator is an ideal; it does not recognize the nature of humanity, to which Maximos alludes.  If this were not the case, would there be as much fuss about Supreme Court nominees?  No.

It's just interesting to me.  I find it fascinating that most of the high-profile right-to-die cases have involved young women.

Though most euthanasia cases involve the elderly, it is interesting to note how often the right-to-die campaign has been dramatized in the cases of brain-damaged young women: Karen Ann Quinlan (1975-1985), Nancy Cruzan (1983-1990), and Terri Schiavo (1990- ).

As far as the case stands now, no, it doesn't have much to do with it.  But I know several feminists, including one who had a very severe eating disorder, and we've talked about this case from that perspective.

As far as his culpability is concerned for her collapse, and his role in her bulimia, I don't know enough to say, but I will tell you this:  I've had one feminist tell me in the past week, point-blank, that Terri Schiavo would never have been in this condition if society didn't have such an unfair standard of beauty that she believes Terri was trying to live up to.

It's not necessarily important to the case right now.  I should have said something like:  some of the subtext.

It's just interesting to me.  I find it fascinating that most of the high-profile right-to-die cases have involved young women.

I think it probably shows that the "damsel in distress" is still a powerful idea.

As far as his culpability is concerned for her collapse, and his role in her bulimia, I don't know enough to say, but I will tell you this:  I've had one feminist tell me in the past week, point-blank, that Terri Schiavo would never have been in this condition if society didn't have such an unfair standard of beauty that she believes Terri was trying to live up to.

I personally think this is a somewhat plausible inference (though overstated and succumbing to the same problems that vitiate most counterfactuals) and one that you wouldn't have to be a feminist to accept.  

Like I said, it seems clear to me that eating disorders are related to social expectations.  I don't think this is particularly relevant to assessing the behavior or motivations of Michael Schiavo, though.

"Imagine for a moment that instead of consideration of the law, judges ruled by emotion, personal morality, and their opinion of the litigants."  

This has been happening for quite some time.  This is nothing new.

I think it probably shows that the "damsel in distress" is still a powerful idea.

That's what I'm getting at here, in a roundabout way.  I am sure that, out there in the universe of brain-injured people on life support, there are an awful lot of young males who have been involved in motorcycle accidents, skateboard accidents, drug overdoses, self-inflicted gunshot wounds, etc., etc.  But (and I use this term reluctantly) the "poster children" for this movement have been almost exclusively young women.

I'm not trying to assess Michael Schiavo's behavior in 1990.  But I will note also that the couple apparently had fertility problems, perhaps related to her rapid weight loss.  It's another feature of this case that distinguishes it.  Anyone who has ever known a woman (and I have) with a severe eating disorder must have thought about this in the context of this case.  

I didn't know about the proximate cause of her initial collapse until a few days ago.  I immediately phoned a friend, who is a feminist (and with whom I disagree with on many, many things) but with whom I still have good conversations from time to time.  And she immediately brought it up.  

Disclaimer: I think the law passed by the Congress is unconstitutional.  I think that the Florida courts adjudicated this one properly, and even if they didn't, there is no due process claim here for the feds to get involved.  That said, I think the 11th Circuit is wrong.

I think they are wrong because they are denying injunctive relief in a situation where the underlying case is about to become moot.  In short, I think they are taking the cowards' way out--the easiest way to avoid a confrontation between the federal judiciary and the Congress about separation of powers is to render the case moot by Terry's death.

I don't think Terry's parents have a bat's chance in hell of prevailing on the merits, even at a brand new trial.  But the fact is that Congress wanted them to have one, and until the courts are willing to tell the Congress that they are wrong, they should have granted the injunction.

As I understand it, the test applied by the 11th Circuit is extremely stingy in its application.  They are apparently saying that even if the harm is irreparable and severe (death), they will not grant injunctive relief unless there is a likelihood that they will succeed on the merits.

Imagine this, for a moment, in the context of a death penalty case.  Can you imagine the court telling a prisoner that even though Congress has given him a right to appeal his case, they will not re-set the execution date, and that he will be dead before it ever gets to trial?

Other circuits have less stringent tests.  As much as I think the Schindlers are wrong, they should appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the test applied by the 11th Circuit was inappropriate and that the tests of the 9th or more "liberal" circuits should be the law of the land.

Strange bedfellows this case makes.

This has been happening for quite some time.  This is nothing new.

Perhaps.  But not in this case.  Here the judges ruled based on the law. More than 20 times.  But Republicans can't seem to get past their emotional attachment to Terri and realize that the ruling was absoutely correct.  If you don't like the law, you work to have it changed, you don't simply ignore it.

The Congress insinuating itself juristiction was profane.  Congressman Harold Ford Jr. admitted as much this morning on Imus.  Not that he was sorry for his complicity, but he acknowledged their error.  When his title was Governor, Bush refused to grant stays of execution because he did not feel he had the authority to overturn the decisions of the people of Texas.  But now as President he has apparently forgotten these matters of principle and trampling on the laws of the soverign state of Florida is no problem.  

This is not justice.  This is not constitutional. This is horrifying.

that's a good one...

Just had less than two minutes to scrabble something out. Sort of like now.

Yes, I'm aware that there are other requirements for an injunction under Florida and Federal law. I may have even put together a complaint or petition asking as much in my time.

I'll try to review the order and give my thoughts later. Given that it's an equity decision, I rather suspect it'll boil down to "they're wrong."

The obvious intent of Congress here was to grant a trial de novo, and there was an obvious threat of impending mootness should Ms. Schiavo die before action was taken.  The law might be struck down as unconstitutional on appeal, or the federal trial court might decide that the Florida courts were right all along--but the courts shouldn't be playing a stalling game to make the scenario unnecessary.  The death penalty comparison is a good one.

There was a previous GAL who did raise some of the concerns of the family and nurse, and he was dismissed by the judge. (There were several articles about him in the Weekly Standard.)

First, Florida is not sovereign.  Second, the Florida Legislature did pass a law in 2003 that required the feeding tube to be re-inserted, but your cherished judiciary ruled it unconstitutional.  The law was not ignored and there was an attempt to change it.  Third, there is no emotional attachment to Terri.  I don't know her.  

You are right, though, in this respect: this decision is unjust and horrifying.  Terminating the life of an incapacitated woman whose "wish" is known only by a husband who defiles every other aspect of their marriage other than serving as her executor is extraordinarily troubling.  The fact that those who support Mr. Schiavo can so easily overlook his inability to be faithful to their marital contract when judging his fitness to serve as her executor defies logic. After all, that is the basis by which he is able to serve as her executor.  In every other instance when the terms of a contract are unilaterally broken, the offended party has the right to terminate the contract, which, in this case, would be divorce.  But, alas, Ms. Schiavo does not have that right, for she is incapacitated.  Oh well, that's too bad, we can just presume Mr. Schiavo has her best interests at heart even though his other actions do not confirm that.  

Now, one would think that if an executor were to petition the court to terminate a life, and the executor's fitness to serve in that position was highly suspect due to their behavior, the court would only agree to this request if sufficient and compelling evidence existed, such as a living will or written documentation.  After all, this is the termination of a life.  There is no turning back.  But, alas, that does not exist.  There is no evidence to substantiate his claim that Terri would want to die, other than hearsay from (surprise!) Mr. Schiavo himself.  How convenient and unbelievably tenuous.

So, in a nutshell, the court has sanctioned the termination of the life of a woman who cannot defend herself and the only evidence in support of the notion that she would want to die is offered by a husband who is not fidelitous to the marital contract for which he relies on to serve as executor.  That's sound jurisprudence.  And you're concerned about Congress over-reaching?  Give me a break.  

This may be a victory for the legal process (in the most technical, heartless sense I can think of), but it is a defeat to the humanity of this country.  

Thanks for playing Dredd, but the law's the law, and whether we agree with underlying morality of the laws of this country, you're still a slave.  Sorry, there's nothing we can do.  What a cop-out.

     

1. Florida is indeed soverign.  And the concept is federalism.  This is for the people of Florida, in their laws and practices, to decide.  Not the US Congress.
   
2. My cherished judiciary?  Don't be an ass.
   
3. No one is "terminating the life on an incapaciated woman."  The court is attempting to determine what Terri wanted.  As she can not speak for herself, someone must speak for her.  By law this person is her husband.  His position has not recently nor suddenly changed.  Without any evidence to support his being a liar, we must assume he is telling the truth. And if Terri indeed wanted to die, who are we to tell her no?

Is Michael Schaivo a dirtbag?  Maybe.  But so what?  If what he is attempting to do is to fulfill the wishes of his wife as she made them known to him, neither you nor I nor the US Congress has any damn right to get involved.

The rule of law is what prevents chaos in our society.  You don't get to make it up as you go along.

As defined by Webster's, here's the definition of sovereign - above all others, chief, supreme; supreme in power, rank, etc.  The federal government is supreme in rank and power to the states.  Florida is not sovereign in the true sense of the word.  It is subject to the laws of the federal government.  

It is absurd to put forward the notion that Mr. Schiavo's conduct should have no bearing on his ability to act as her executor.  Again, I re-iterate: by committing adultery, Mr. Schiavo has broken the terms of the contract by which he is accorded the right to serve as her executor.  Normally, the offended party, which in this case is Ms. Schiavo, would have the ability to terminate the contract, i.e. marriage.  But, because she is incapacitated, she cannot.  Ms. Schiavo is unable to state whether she wishes to remain in this contract and, as a result, absolutely has no recourse in the matter.  She cannot voluntarily terminate the contract and, as a result, deny the ability of Mr. Schiavo to serve as her executor.  Terri is subject to his whim because he is the only party that can dissolve the contract.

That notwithstanding, apparently the "rule of law" dictates the process must move forward.  It is absolutely ridiculous to support the idea that an executor, despite having fundamentally violated the terms of the contract, is still granted the ability to execute the most critical right that contract accords.  To compound the issue further, the court then relies on hearsay from the same flawed witness as evidence that death is what Ms. Schiavo wants.  One would expect alarm bells to go off when a party that has violated a contract claims to represent the intersts of the party it has offended and provides no written documentation to that effect.    

This is where the cheering about the rule of law, or the fact that Mr. Schiavo should be accorded the right to serve as Ms. Schiavo's executor, is lost on me.  How is it that this is a just decision when the affected party has no recourse, the executor has violated the terms of the contract, and the only evidence that Ms. Schiavo wants to die is offered by the contract-violating party?  Since when does the law only serve the process and not the humanity that it affects?  

The US Constitution provides no circumstances for federal involvement in family matters that have been settled by state courts.  In other words, the Federal courts do not have jurisdiction.  In the matters of the people of the state of Florida, Florida is soverign.  There are some exceptions, of course.  These were outlined in the US Constitution and in effect upon ratification.  In general, these deal with issues such as interstate commerce and international relations.  Not family law.

It is absurd to put forward the notion that Mr. Schaivo loses his legal representation of his legal wife, and the position that he has maintained for more than ten years now - that Terri would not want to live in these circumstances, because he has moved on with his life while attempting to fulfill Terri's wishes.  You assert without an iota of evidence that his representation of Terri's wishes are false.  This "hearsay" evidence is what he was called on to present; he speaks for his wife as her legal representative as she can not speak for herself.  

You appear to not have considered that this is indeed what Terri wanted.  Perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Schaivo indeed had this conversation.  And that Mr. Schaivo has been attempting to carry out her wishes, only to be thwarted by the courts.  If that is the case, and any argument to the contrary has thus far been without substance, then who has standing to deny her her wishes?  Not you.  Not me.  Not the Congress.  Not the President.  

The rule of law has been used to justify many noxious policies, both here and abroad.  I suppose as long as the state sanctions it, it is just, huh?  

Regardless, you still haven't addressed my fundamental point: that Mr. Schiavo has somehow acted in good faith, when his current situation belies that completely.  He has violated the marital contract, yet you find nothing wrong that he be given the right to legally represent her.  You may attempt to rationalize his behavior, but it is still contract-breaking behavior.  Under normal circumstances if Ms. Schiavo were capable of representing her interests, we would not be having this discussion.  Alas, that is not the case.      

Not true.  Terri's parents and a priest were allowed to give her Last Rights yeasterday.

Last Rites involves the application of charism. It is for in extremis situations. Last communion -- vaticum -- is given in anticipation of death. While no longer a formal obligation, practicing Catholics know they are to receive last Communion when death can be reasonably expected. That's what's being denied, so she can't have the tee tiniest bit of food or water.

Don't worry. Her right to practice her faith won't stop them from killing her. We have a well-greased Culture of Death, here.

I suppose as long as the state sanctions it, it is just, huh?  

A woman wishes to die in peace.  The US Congress steps in to stop it.  What is justice here?  

You have apparently not considered to be at all plausible that the husband is acting in good faith to achieve the end that his wife desired.  You assume he lies for no gain.  Without substantive evidence.  What is justice here?

And you seemingly applaud the farther intrusion of the US Congress and the federal courts into our private lives.  Conservatives for decades have argued for smaller, less powerful government, and personal liberty.  But as soon as a personal choice is made that grates against their morality, Republicans are suddenly for expanding the powers of government to regulate matters for which there is no Constitutional provision, and for Federal oversight of matters that are most capably addressed by the states.  This is shameful.  It is abhorrent.  It is wrong.  

You can not discern what Terri Schaivo would have wanted.  I can not discern what Terri Schaivo would have wanted.  And legally, the only one that can is the man she married.  For more than ten years he has been trying to give her the end he claimed she wanted.  Now tell me, what is justice here?

Having an affair and siring two kids is acting in good faith in a marriage?  Or is the only act of fidelity that matters is that he ensures her "wish to die" is seen through.  Who has the more compelling motivation here to get on with their life?  Terri or Michael?  

Once the state sanctions the starvation of one of its citizens it no longer a "private matter"; it becomes a matter of public policy.  As it has done in the past, the federal government has a right and obligation to intervene if it believes a citizen's rights are being violated.  By your logic, slavery would still be legal.  There are some issues, such as the preservation of life, that transcend state's rights.  

If you had written evidence that Terri wished to die, would it make any difference?  

the federal government has a right and obligation to intervene if it believes a citizen's rights are being violated.

Sure if someone else is violating the rights the constitution guarantees.  But consider, can I violate my own rights?  If I wish to end my life, is that a federal issue?  We, The People, established the government for the sake of OUR liberty.  To exercise OUR rights as individuals as we see fit.  To the best that the court can discern, Terri wanted to die.  

You concern yourself more with the quality of Michael Schaivo's husbandship in the last few years than the fact that he has been attempting to carry out Terri's wishes for more than a decade.

By your logic, slavery would still be legal.

Don't be so obtuse.

What is this "culture of life" you are protecting here?  The right to live in a vegetative state, against your will, with liquid nutrition stuck into you via a plastic tube, as your loved ones stare longingly at you remembering what you once were but can never be again.  Yes, by all means lets protect the right of someone to experience the culture of life, even if that life is a painful, unconscious, hellish existence of indeterminite length.

Ok, sorry for the rant.  I realize people of good faith can have different views on this issue and  I am not attacking you or other supporters of Terri's parents personally.  I am sure you are acting from the best motives and out of a good faith concern for Terri Schiavo.  But, according to an impartial judge, so is her husband and, far more importantly, according to an impartial judge, Terri would not want to continue her existence in this state. I think Terri's wishes should have precedence over the wishes of the state and any others.  I thought this society was about protecting the rights of individual citizens to make their own choices, provided those choices do not harm others.  According to an impartial judge who has heard all available evidence, Terri has made her choice.  That choice should be respected, even if our own choices would be different.

P.S.--Do not, by the way, take my argument as an endorsement of the "pro-choice" Democrats in favor of abortion.  The fetus has had no say in whether it should be aborted.  In contrast, Terri has apparently expressed her choice.

Were performed.

Have a point?