Seems to me preventing and punishing murder is a legitimate function of govenment. If the State of Florida, as represented by Judge Greer fails in its duty, the federal government certainly has a compelling interest in protecting Terri's right to life. There is really nothing complicated about this case. Terri's husband, supported by the coercive power of the State of Florida, wants to murder his wife by denying her food and water. If her loving husband did this sort of thing to a dog, there would be widespread indignant outrage and he would find his sorry a** in jail for long time.
I think Greer is just doing unthinking analysis of the situation. In other cases the husband would have the final say so ends the analysis. He does not see the need to consider the other aspects which the law provides to show a husband decision is colored by outside circumstances.
The analysis of why this is an exceptional circumstance must be done throught the standard analysis of an incapacitated married wife/husband. The question and what is most alarming about this case is that it points out the limited legal ability of judges. Book smarts mean nothing, law in a vacume without facts. Legal knowledge must work at applied to the facts of the real world.
"If he did this sort of thing to a dog..."
But the dog would have told him that he didn't want to live with nothing to eat but Puppy Chow and Micahael would have mercifully done him in.
I suppose you could say that I have an old, worn-out, defective wife. The not yet healed scars from her cancer surgery last month have destroyed the symmetry of her breasts, and the future costs of imaging, chemotherapy, radiation treatments, and more surgery make her hardly worth keeping - except that she is my wife, and will remain that "as long as we both shall live". The time might come when I face a decision like Michael's - the possibility is real, and perhaps not that remote. But if, and when, I do, it will be a decision of love and respect, not the termination of an inconvenient appendage.
Michael Schiavo has transferred such feelings as he might ever have had for Terri to his paramour, and by that has surrendered his right to speak for her. I have heard some of his apologists speak of the bond between husband and wife in cosmic terms - holy matrimony, to be put asunder by no man. But in fact, it is a tender bond, easily surrendered by either party not devoted to maintaining it.
No evidence has been presented that Terri ever failed to honor her marriage, fully and completely. But the story for Michael is far more sinister. His relationship with another woman is open and notorious; his conflict of interest versus Terri is obvious. She deserves a representative of her own interests, and a competent, honest judge who will follow the actual law.
Judge Greer is legally blind, and thus not competent to judge the only evidence of Terri's humanity. She cannot speak, or manipulate her environment to communicate with others, but she can see, recognize, and appreciate her surroundings to an extent that can be appreciated only visually, a mode unavailable to this judge. He should have recused himself on that basis alone, but chose instead to become the sole arbiter of fact in this case. Many other courts and judges have reviewed this case in legal terms, but all have been prevented from carrying out a de novo review of the facts.
According to the US Supreme Court, no serial murderer, no matter how heinous and depraved the crime, can receive a death sentence without the unanimous consent of a jury. But this single judge has seized this power for himself in the case of this innocent woman, and holds to it like the grim death he chooses to visit on her. It is not hard to understand where the depravity lies in this case.