And the executive branch has no power to order a judicial outcome they desire. It is not illegal. If it was, then the appellate courts would have overturned Greer. The law, from what I can see, has been appropriately applied. Greer is not making law, he basically established who speaks for Terri and who is charged with her care. That also include discontinuation of care. What you want is to have the State (federal and state level) take over that function and not family. Sounds very Stalinistic to me.
Care does not include murder.
Now who's speaking emotionally? My premise might be Jeffersonian, but to call up the specter of Stalin is silly.
They're not ordering anything. They are reigning in an illegal activity on the part of the Judiciary. The appellate court would only rule if they were petitioned on that singular, isolated point of law, and they perhaps might not even then-- this case has perfectly illustrated the incestuous reluctance of the Judiciary to overrule itself without herculean reasons to do so. And a genuine taboo against limiting the power of judges at any level.
By what premise can a Judge overrule the law (in this case, the law granting DCF the power to act)? Isn't this a case of a regal judiciary, able to decide which laws IT wants enforced or not?
Regardless of the fate of Terri Schindler, the constitutional issues that have been raised in this case call for restoration of the balance of power between the branches. A 'constitutional crisis,' though a scary phrase, might be neccessary to end the increasing autonomy and untouchability of judges ruling beyond their powers.
In any case, following DCF intervention in the case, the matter would be settled as to who acted legally or illegally. Terri Schindler would only be kept alive pending the outcome of those issues.