Congress has the power to impeach judges. (Not that they have used it recently.)
Just because you have gotten used to the idea that the courts write law, does not make it Constitutional. Courts were set up to "uphold" the law, not write it.
The Congress had every right to do what it did in this case. Once the state court violated Terri Sciavo's civil rights (ie. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness), the Congress had every right to refer it to the Federal court.
Who is Mr. Richman to decide what is "arbitrary"? I also think that you must be misinformed of the details of this particular case. One judge should not ultimately decide on the fate of a human being, especially, when there are people who will accept the reponsibility for her.
And, if you understand the bill passed by Congress, the Judge ignored them and based his recent ruling on the legality of the previous case. The bill Congress passed was for a completely new trial, not review of the previous case. (Which is what this Clinton appointed judge decided to do)
Just because you have gotten used to the idea that the courts write law, does not make it Constitutional. Courts were set up to "uphold" the law, not write it.
Exactly, they should be impeaching judges as they are empowered to do, not passing unconstitutional laws. Two wrongs don't make a right.