The general nature of the U.S. Constitution, and many state constitutions as well, is that any two of the three branches may together overrule the third. Were this not the case, whatever branch couldn't be overruled would reign supreme.
Prop. 187 is another (California) example...in this case, the voters wishes were overturned in the courts by the liberal judges. What you site happens all the time whenever the libs don't get their way. They go and cry to the courts. The precedent has already been set by the libs.
Your points are well taken. However, in the conservative argument for life this decision was just.
And as far as "too far gone" as Terri has been "illustrated"...it's difficult to judge that knowing that she has been denied appropriate rehabilitation over the last several years. Had she had that care...well, she might not have returned to "normal" but we don't know what miracles could've happened with those who work in rehabilitation...she might have had some type of function (swallow, ect...) restored.
No one but no one has the right to take away hope, in any case, when it comes to life. But you know that already. ;)
This is a SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE .... READ ... for God's sake, will ya? This is about life ebbing out of a person in a contested case, where there is NO CERTAINTY about the patient's ability to be rehabilitated (which the HINO has refused at EVERY turn), where she CLEARLY is not comatose and responds to external stimuli, and about a judge who has REFUSED to consider any alternative but STARVING HER TO DEATH!!!!!!!
Would you NOT consider this to be a SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE???? Or do YOU know thousands of cases just like this????
When there is ANY doubt, you give the benefit of the doubt to LIFE ......... NOT PURPOSEFUL DEATH BY STARVATION!!!
Would you feel outrage at someone who was purposely starving a dog that was an inconvenience???? Or .. a convicted killer on death row who was purposely STARVED TO DEATH??? I'll bet you'd get your pants in a liberally wrinkled knot if you knew that was happening, but now you want to express FEAR of judicial precedent over just the CHANCE to save a human life, sentenced to a cruel and inhumane death when the facts are in conflict?
If a so-called conservative judge did this, I would feel no different ...oh, but that's right, I forgot. A conservative judge wouldn't do this. Who would be complicit in cases like this ... could it be liberal moral relativists? Or ...a liberal politician who wants the right to kill an innocent baby who's an inconvenience?? And to even have the RIGHT to murder a baby in the birth canal during delivery, puncturing its brain to suck them out??? Or ... a liberal activist who wants to protect trees, seas, manatees, whales, rock formations, coasts and ground .. and feels entitled to burn, bomb and destroy the property of others?? Or .. a morally bankrupt physician who may want to "harvest" organs from a newborn babe who may have medical challenges BEFORE it is legally declared dead. Or ... any of this ilk, who are indifferent to just how precious HUMAN LIFE is. See any paradox or hyocrisy here?
You must take out your worry beads, meditate, and focus on your naval, maybe inhale some green tea aromatherapy ... it'll all get better.
Those of us with faith don't have to go to those lengths to feel peace .. we have faith in our Lord. Do you know that doctors are wrong a lot??? Do you know than even a truly comatose patient can shock the doctors after years .. even over 10 years .. and recover from that coma??? Miracles DO happen .. events confound science.
TERRI IS NOT IN A COMA ... SHE JUST HAD THE MISFORTUNE TO MARRY A SELFISH, GREEDY, IMMORAL MAN. My guess: probably a just another Godless liberal.
We, on the other side, FIGHT ON!