here's the situation as best i understand it. florida is one of a growing number of states to enact a body of law (supposedly one that is fairly straightforward and relatively well constructed)to deal with situations like that of terry schiavo. her parents have spent 13 years, unsuccessfully trying to have michael schiavo removed as her legal guardian. the court-appointed guardian ad litem summarizes those cases (after prefacing his summary with two excerpts from by scotus justice scalia--i've italicized them--in rejecting a cert application for a similar case from missouri) as follows:
I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. (emphasis added) Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)
And while he might not agree with a particular state's method for addressing a matter – he not only defers to the states – but further admonishes us to avoid the politicization of legislation in these matters:
I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that [497 U.S. 261, 293] enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion - requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune. Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)
In this context, it is vital to realize that Florida Statutes, Florida Rules of Evidence, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida case law were the basis for the past 13 years of litigation and conclusions of law in Theresa's case.
...A legal analysis of the tens of thousands of pages of documents in the case file, against the statutory legal guidelines and the supporting case law, leads the GAL to conclude that all of the appropriate and proper elements of the law have been followed and met. The law has done its job well. The courts have carefully and diligently adhered to the prescribed civil processes and evidentiary guidelines, and have painfully and diligently applied the required tests in a reasonable, conscientious and professional manner. The disposition of the courts, four times reviewed at the appellate level, and once refused review by the Florida Supreme Court, has been that the trier of fact followed the law, did its job, adhered to the rules and rendered a decision that, while difficult and painful, was supported by the facts, the weight of the evidence and the law of Florida.
here's a link to the guardian ad litem's report
Link
when the congress convened last weekend to enact legislation to provide the schindlers with an opportunity to be heard by a federal court, they were the ones who were outta line. federal courts--as scalia pointed out--are not a place where one goes after losing a family law case to start all over again. if that became a precedent, there would obviously be no need for state courts except as a legal rehearsal hall.
(obviously there are times when a state law violates federal law or the constitution or when state/federal law are both applicable to the same situation, but this aint one of those)
furthermore, neither the congress nor the president has any constitutional authority to assign cases to the judiciary nor to tell the judiciary how and when to act. in that respect this is the equivalent of a bill of attainder--a law declaring someone guilty of a crime (expressly forbidden by the constitution).
this whole thing was a scam and now those who perpetrated it are doing their best to confuse the issue by blaming judges. for example, congressman patrick mcchenry (r nc)said:
"We passed a law that specifically is worded for this case. Yet those judges aren't even talking about our original intent from Congress. What we have here is an out-of-control judiciary."
here's what was clearly intended (since it is part of the text of the bill mchenry et al wrote, enacted and bush signed):
"Any parent of Theresa Marive Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act... The District Court shall entertain and the determine the suit without any delay... After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary."
which is exactly what federal judge whitmore did. he accepted the schindler's pleading. only because he found it without merit, that was it.
if they intended the judge had to let the schindlers win, they shoulda said so. only that woulda definitely violated the constitution so they did what they did and are now blaming the courts.
it's all grandstanding and head grandstander tom delay (who, intentionally or otherwise, was a little less caught in the lights over his own problems) adding more of the same when the scotus refused to hear the case:
"Sadly, Mrs. Schiavo will not receive a new and full review of her case as the legislation required. I strongly believe that the court erred in reaching its conclusion and that once again they have chosen to ignore the clear intent of Congress."
if any of these pricks had an iota of humanity or gave a fuck about anyone but themselves, they coulda at least spent the time passing a bill permitting someone to toss about 10 ml of fentanyl into terri's last feeding.
(sorry for goin on a rant here. and even sorrier if i missed your point. and sorriest most of cuz i couldnt think of anything even wryly absurdly blackly funny to say that might make all this a lil easier to take)
