Actually as I understand it the judge is on the right side of the law. Although, something should have been done long before this.
How is the judge on the right side of the law?
By appointing HIMSELF as guardian of Terri Shiavo and not an independent guardian who would have her best interests at heart.
This,seems to me, is a conflict of interest.
Since you're an expert on the laws in this case, please tell us, specifically -- by name of statute -- what "law" Judge Greer is "on the right side of." It clearly isn't the Florida law that requires clear and convincing proof of a patient's desire to have nutrition withheld, because there is no proof in this case that rises to the standard of clear and convincing. The judge has gone beyond the limits of the law, and of his authority, either because he's incompetent (that's what I vote) or he has a powerful personal agenda (I don't think he's smart enough to have such, I think he's just a bumbling hack who wasn't smart enough to do it right and is too stubborn to admit he did it wrong). But then, you know the "laws" of Florida. Please educate us in how the Judge is on "the right side" of them.
"Actually as I understand it the judge is on the right side of the law. Although, something should have been done long before this."
In a parallel universe maybe. Ignoring a congessional supoena is NOT on the right side of the law. Regardless of whether he appreciates the motivation for the supoena's they are legal, prescribed and inviolate.