Supreme Court to rule on Schiavo

Orlando Sentinel ^ | January 16, 2005 | Maya Bell

[l.tecolote]

With all due respect, her rights are relevant. While it's true that the Gov. Bush's case argument does not focus on Terri individually but rather on the generic aspects of due process rights protection for any Floridian in such circumstances, and supposedly protected by Florida disability laws, Terri's Law was quickly written, legislatively-passed and gubernatorily-approved because her death was proximate. Gov. Bush stepped in to protect Terri's never-invoked due process rights -- heretofore a legitimate government function. The Florida Supreme Ct. slapped him down, ruling that such gubernatorial intervention is impermissible. Yet governors in all 50 states have the traditional right to pardon criminals and/or commute sentences. Judges seldom openly grumble or squawk when that happens.
The focus of this case is still about due process rights -- the denial of a governor's third-party obligation and right to intervene for an examination of whether any citizen has been denied his/her civil due process rights. Gov. Bush's legal team are arguing about the third-party aspect. However, since Terri's rights were the initiating factor, she/her rights are central and will be equally affected by whatever SCOTUS decides. If you have not read the brief, I suggest you do. I believe it's at Terrisfight.org.
IMHO, a large part of what's really going on here is a background of unspoken and still simmering political resentment. Terri's case provided FL's Sup.Ct. a chance to slap at Gov. Bush because of the 2000 SCOTUS presidential election decision which nullified its ruling. Unfortunately, Terri's a vulnerable, innocent victim and pawn in this battle about which government branch is supreme. If the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, there's a good likelihood U.S. governors, as a whole, will cease intervening to protect citizens' civil law rights. Careful what you wish for.