[AaronInCarolina]

A federal judge just scolded the legislative and executive branches for trying to interfere with the judiciary and their sacrifice to show the world who runs the United States. So far the response of the leg. and exec. branches doesn't look promising.

This, in my opinion, is one of the most bizarre and frightening aspects of this case. A legislative body, (in this case the FL Legislature), whose task it is to create laws did so, with a very vague "Clear and Convincing" clause in it. This clause was exploited, and Terri Schiavo fell victim to it. The FL state court made a ruling based upon this original form of the law. Then the FL Legislature attempted to amend the law (although I think it was too narrowly directed at one individual) in the form of the so-called "Terri's Law". The FL state court basically told the legislature that they could not amend what they had created, since the court had ruled on the original law, saying "it was an attempt to interfere in a judicial ruling". The court seems to have developed an irrational affection for the original form of the law, thus overstepping their authority in proclaiming it could not be modified, simply on the basis that they had made a ruling on the original form. They do not seem to realize that their only purpose is to assure that all laws are compatible with the state constitution, not whether the court likes one form of a law better than a modified one. The FL courts are WAY out of line on this.

[Regulator]

The FL state court basically told the legislature that they could not amend what they had created, since the court had ruled on the original law, saying "it was an attempt to interfere in a judicial ruling". The court seems to have developed an irrational affection for the original form of the law, thus overstepping their authority in proclaiming it could not be modified, simply on the basis that they had made a ruling on the original form. They do not seem to realize that their only purpose is to assure that all laws are compatible with the state constitution, not whether the court likes one form of a law better than a modified one. The FL courts are WAY out of line on this

Another in a long line of extremely important points in this heinous case.

Not only did we have judicial overstepping on the part of Judge Greer (the first county probate judge to decide that he has the power of execution in a civil case), but we once again saw the infamous and arrogant Florida Supreme Court (of "we have jurisdiction" fame in 2000) jump in to assert the rather strange notions you just mentioned: that once ruled on, a law may not change. Gosh, any other orders to the legislature, guys 'n gals? Or can we just be good little legislators and go home now?

[floriduh voter]

Hospice Woodside reports that their new shrubbery made it through the protests okay. They were so worried about the new plants that lined the sidewalks where the Pinellas Park PD were arresting children.

[l.tecolote]

> ... A legislative body, (in this case the FL Legislature), whose task it is to create laws did so, with a very vague "Clear and Convincing" clause in it. This clause was exploited, and Terri Schiavo fell victim to it.

And the history behind inclusion of this "vague 'Clear and Convincing'" legislative clause began after HINO's first suit to remove Terri's feeding tube was dismissed in 1998. In preparation for a 2nd attempt, Felos went to work in quiet collaboration with Sen. Jim King for this change. Then in 1999, HINO resumed his suit, and with Felos' trial lawyer expertise -- well, we all know the tragic result.