[Legerdemain]

yup, funny, how the family went to the legislature and Gov Bush to be allowed to continue this circus, got their wish, then when the state is sued regarding this terrible law, they do not understand this is now an issue between her husband and the state.

Terri's family do not have a horse in this race...

Flame away...I bought a fireproof suit

[nickcarraway]

Well, what are you going to do when a judge disregards Florida law regarding the appointment of guardians. Judges who refuse to follow the law cause untold problems...

[Robert A Cook PE]

No horse.

A daughter.

[Old Professer]

Terri's family do not have a horse in this race...

If they did, you'd probably shoot it.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"Terri's family do not have a horse in this race..."

Only their horses ass sonova.....son in law in name only who wants their daughter dead.

[shhrubbery!]

Terri's family do not have a horse in this race...

Ummm...did you read all the way to the last paragraph?

Michael's lawsuit also seeks a removal of Terri's feeding tube for the third time. The Schindlers' petition asks the judge to allow them to be appointed Terri's guardian in place of Michael.

If this were merely a dispute over the constitutional separation of powers, you might be right.

But the lawsuit includes yet another demand for Terri's death by starvation. The Schindlers do indeed have a dog in that fight.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Makes no sense to flame you. You obviously don't have a soul that has any humanity left in it.

[middie]

In an unusual event, you and I agree completely on the issue of the parents' standing to intervene in the action. The protestations to the contrary are an example of lawyers having lost their objectivity of law and procedure and instead have become nothing but spokespersons for a position of ideology not law.

That character Jay Seculew (regret the spelling), should step out from the facade' of asserting a seemingly arguable position of law and be honest by saying that he wants the parents to have standing because it suits his fanatic ideology and not any justicable interest.

While he, and those like him, rail about judges, as they pejoratively like to say, making up the rules of law as the go along according to their own personal desires, he now complains because a very good trial judge refuses to do exactly that. That's the sort of situational ethics that constitutes an absence thereof.