Replies

There is law giving him this power to pardon but in this instance a law was hastily passed against ones wishes (according to the courts) to overide a judicial ruling. Pardons have been there and is a power of the govenor but to pass laws to overide unpopular court decisions is overstepping your powers

>>>to pass laws to overide unpopular court decisions is overstepping your powers

To pass laws, IS the power of the legislature. Behind the law is the will of the people. There was no time to express the will of the people in this case, by recall or electoral defeat of the judges. So the people, by their representatives in the legislature, expressed their will by means of a law. Because Terri would have died soon, there was no other recourse, and the people acted via the legislature. They did not create the time constraint, the law of reality imposed that.
Nothing separates this from the governor's power to commute a sentence or pardon a condemned man, except precedent (and it's not totally unprecedented). This is a death sentence and the governor's power does not derive from the type of court (criminal or civil) or the criminal conduct of the condemned (much less the lack of it!) or the historical fact that most exercises of this power have been on behalf of criminals. And remember, the governor chose NOT to exercise that power without the express authority of the people via the legislature. The executive and the legislature have deemed that Terri should live; how do you discern balance of powers in the judiciary's insistence that she die?
And where does the law say that laws may not be passed and enforced for the benefit of one individual? (If you care to see it as such. We who are pro-Terri consider this law beneficial to us all.)
How come you don't call yourself AbsoluteLaw? ;)