Those laws and regulations are not capable of being reformed in such a degree that the judiciary could be "reined in" as far as I can see. My point is that the content of a ruling cannot be dictated by Congress other than what is already prescribed under the laws.
I suppose you could argue that changing a law could rein in the Judiciary. But I don't think that is what is intended.
We disagree on that point.
My point is that the content of a ruling cannot be dictated by Congress other than what is already prescribed under the laws.
I haven't asserted that Congress dictates outcome of a case.
I suppose you could argue that changing a law could rein in the Judiciary. But I don't think that is what is intended.
The primary power that the Congress and state legislators have is the making of laws. And making laws can radically change civil and criminal procedure, as well as civil and criminal causes of action. See, e.g., the reformation of the model penal code regarding the insanity defense following the Hinckley trial.
I'm not associating "insanity" with events of the Schiavo trial, but am citing Congressional action in the wake of the Hinckley trial to support the proposition that Congress has prospective power over courts. It also has retrospective power, and has impeached judges.
I was thinking about what sorts of law changes might have an impact. Just brainstorming, not making any value judgements here.
There could be a modification of civil procedure where the gravaman of the action is determination of an incapacitated wishes. A requirement for a more detailed defense of finding intent to the standard of "clear and convincing," for example. The defense of the conclusion could be required to be phrased in the same terms as the legal standard.
In Westinghouse Elect. Corp., Inc. v. Bay County Energy Systems, Inc., 590 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court stated: Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established [Cboldt comment: and therefore also the falsity or inaccuracy of contrary testimony or evidence].Although this standard of proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict, In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), approved, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990), it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.
Cited in an article relating to a completely different matter <--
There could be mandatory appellate review. There could be review of the language of Living Wills, and a requirement for evidence that teh signer was not critically confused (the Georgia Model form can easily be critically confusing, a person might check of the box that says "including food and water", which has the legal effect of withholding food and water).
There could be a statutory right of appeal to a federal court. There could be a statutory requirement for the appellate court to disregard all finding of fact by the lower court, and arrive at its own finding of fact based on the evidence in the record (I am not advocating this, I think it makes the process messy), and admitting new evidence.
The legal standard for overturning on appeal could be set as "preponderance," instead of "clearly erroneous." Again, just for this narrow class of case. If society does indeed value life, then the burden to choose and enforce one's own death can be reasonably set very high.