1) Completely disregard well-established rules - set forth in the United States Code - for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order - because we must err on the side of life. 2) Abandon the responsibilities assigned to the judiciary by the Florida Statutes for decision-making as a health-care surrogate - because we must err on the side of life.
3) Throw out established standards of appellate review - because we must err on the side of life.
4) Ignore plainly stated Congressional intent, and infer an intent explicitly rejected by the Senate majority leader - because we must err on the side of life.
This list could go on and on - but the point is obvious. SReepers are proving once again that their definition of "judicial activism" is a judicial decision with which they disagree. Adherence to the law under which a decision is rendered is of no importance if the desired outcome is not achieved.
I don't think that's an accurate characterization.
Here are some of the objections to the assertion that the rule of law is being followed in this case:
1) The initial contest on the finding of fact was plainly a stacked deck and not a fair hearing. Michael Schiavo spent $400k+ on a top-flight specialist lawyer, while the Schindlers had a first-timer fresh out of law school. It wasn't an equitable contest - the outcome was effectively predetermined. This is a systemic problem in the judicial branch. I'm not sure how to solve it but it is clear that the result - which, in establishing the facts of the case irremediably, under the law - prejudiced all other appeals.
2) Legal procedures were ignored at the discretion of Judge Greer when they would have been beneficial to the Schindlers' case. Thus the rule of law is seen to be very selective, based largely on the personal opinion of the judge.
3) There are properly checks and balances in the government. The legislative check was essentially overruled by the judiciary, and the executive totally failed in its responsibility. Moreover, it appears that not only has the judiciary full command of the legislative authority up to and including issuing a Bill of Attainder under which Terri has been put to death, but also has assumed command of the local executive authority against the expressed intent of the Constitutional executive authority.
4) The appearance of corruption is evident in the campaign contribution record, and the record of relationships between Felos, the hospice, the euthanasia movement, and the third guardian ad litem.
5) The federal judiciary also nullified the federal legislature by denying-in-practice the de novo review called for in the law passed specifically to address this case. By denying a stay it also denied any possibility of a meaningful de novo review, rendering the law passed by Congress, and thus the will of the legislative branch, meaningless.
Hear, hear!