[MatrixMetaphore]

Take a look at what the government is (essentially) trying to accomplish here. They are attempting to intervene in a state law case. Many disagree that this is a state issue, but it really is. Florida law does not recognize that Terri should be divorced from her husband. Florida law does not recognize her parents as having power of attorney. Florida law recognizes assisted feeding and hydration devices are "life support" units, and may be removed upon authorization and/or direction of the next of kin, which in this case, is Michael.

The government was established with the understanding that federal governance and state governance is separate. The supremacy clause states that when two laws, state and federal, conflict with one another, federal supersedes the state. The problem is that federal law DOES NOT conflict here, because there isn't one. Congress is attempting to enact a statue that WILL conflict with the state, therefore overriding it. That's an abuse of power in my opinion.

Touching on "cruel and unusual", where does the line stand on this issue? If someone cannot breathe on their own, but will take several hours to die if removed from a respirator, is this "cruel and unusual"? I'm not so sure.

Global News Matrix

[agrace]

Thank you. That's very concise and helpful for this layman (er, woman). So how come state-convicted death penalty inmates get federal review?

Any idea whether there any precedent where the Supreme Court found a state law in violation of federally protected civil rights and therefore unconstitutional?

In fact, didn't they just do this in their ruling about juvenile death row convicts?