"It's a step in the right direction for the judge to take the guardianship FROM the HINO" But he hasn't. The HINO is still calling the shots. The GAL is just a representative who offers an opinion in court and it seems that even the court is arrogantly operating on the suppostion that Terri's Law will be overturned on Constitutional grounds. As I see it, the most important Contitutional issue here is the right to life. If defending the most fundamental principle of the Constitution is deemed "unconstitutional," we might as well throw the 
document away, because it has lost all real meaning anyway.
Can it be argued that a legal precedent HAS been established (to uphold Terri's Law) in the earlier case of congressional/legislative intervention to prevent starvation and non-intervention of Downs syndrome infants? It looks that way to me!
see article in post 77
"About 20 years ago, a hospital staff in Indiana was starving an infant with Down's syndrome. A whistle-blower alerted authorities, and the district attorney went to court to order hydration. The judge refused. Public comment supported the idea that "difficult" decisions like starving disabled infants were best left to the privacy of doctor-parent consultation.
"In spite of that, enough of the public was sufficiently outraged to create a stir that cut across the political spectrum in Washington. As a result, congressional legislation was drafted to prevent medical killings of disabled infants.
"The legislation, which ultimately was passed, was decried by bioethicists, physicians and others as an attack on both the medical profession and the privacy of family decisions. As a result of the passage of the law, though, more of us avoided getting killed in hospital nurseries through denial of treatment."
Absolutely, Demers has virtually said that he considers this law unconstitutional, and he is expecting a decision soon, and therefore "Dr." Wolfson won't have to finish is guardian ad-litemship.
Is Demers "Republican"?