Yes, you are correct. I did misunderstand the court's determination, in part because I accepted the notion common here that the court did not find a potential for conflict of interest. The court did so find and therefore determined that the husband could not make the necessary decisions for Terri. Then in response to the petition of the husband, the court agreed to act as surrogate for Terri under Florida law.
The court then held the lengthy trial culminating in the court's determination of Terri's wishes in 2000.
So you are correct, the court has made the determination, by clear and convincing evidence. BTW, it looks like the tube will be pulled in about an hour and a half.
No, you misunderstood because you decided to advocate for the state without bothering to ascertain the facts. In other words, you lobbied for the death by starvation of Terri Schiavo from ignorance and fear, ignorance of the facts and your own mortal fears of severe disability.
The court did so find and therefore determined that the husband could not make the necessary decisions for Terri.
The remedy in Florida law for a guardian who may have a conflict is removal of the guardian and appointment of the next of kin able to handle that duty, the Schindlers.
Then in response to the petition of the husband, the court agreed to act as surrogate for Terri under Florida law.
You would make a fine Florida judge. A conflicted guardian can not petition for anything he must be removed as guardian.
The court then held the lengthy trial culminating in the court's determination of Terri's wishes in 2000.
So you are correct, the court has made the determination, by clear and convincing evidence.
Now you're dissembling.
The Florida Court of Appeals claimed the power to sentence to death by starvation an innocent human being. Where do they derive that power Mr Lawyer?
BTW, it looks like the tube will be pulled in about an hour and a half.
Point being?