You mean like Judge Greer?
Basically, what's needed is for the three branches of government to be willing to bitch-slap each other when appropriate. And Judge Greer deserves a firm one.
One thing which might help some future cases like this from arising would be for the governor to have the authority to compel a particular judge to recuse himself from a case and have a procedure by which judicial findings of fact could legitimately be challenged before another judge. There would have to be strong standards of proof involved in any such challenge, but such challenges should not be so effectively forbidden as they are now. As it is, getting a judicial finding of fact overturned effectively requires that the judge overturning the finding of fact be able to do so while accepting that original judge's interpretation of all applicable evidence.
For example (and this is a slight exaggeration, but not by much), suppose Terri had danced a jig in front of Judge Greer, but Felos called Doctor Nick Riviera to testify that such dancing was "merely reflex" and that Terri was in fact vegetative, and Greer declared that he found Doctor Nick's claim credible and Terri was, in fact vegetative. Even if the appellate court saw Terri dancing a jig, the fact that Judge Greer found Doctor Nick's testimony credible meant they would have to as well.
If Terri were to dance a waltz instead of a jig before the appellate court, then that might be grounds for appeal. However, the Schiavos would have to demonstrate that she wouldn't have been able to do the waltz before the original trial court. Even if the Schiavos did demonstrate that, they wouldn't gain much because the most likely result would be to have the case remanded to [guess who] Judge Greer, who would then declare credible Dr. Nick's testimony that Waltzing is all based on reflex just like dancing a jig.
Who's supposed to have more power--the governor, or a trial-court judge? Unless Bush does something, it will be clear who does have more power.