I saw the original House bill (HR 1332). It was riddled with all sorts of damaging precedent.
I haven't seen the full house bill so I'll take your word on it.
I believe this is a case of a mortally flawed judgement by one judge in Florida.
Florida should have remedied it, but did not. I agree with the democrat who said the law basically says we have no confidence in the Fla. courts (mostly in this case a finding of fact by one judge), no confidence in the Fla. legislature (to rein in their judiciary or to pass legislation over their fiat rule).
But when this occurs and an innocent's life is ruled by the court to be taken... I don't know what you do, other than support the federal government's duty to protect the basic rights of the governed.
Like I said, I wish it hadn't been necessary, but given that it was, I think they did a good job with it.
Bear in mind, the facts still must be heard by another court. The outcome is not specifically determined by this law.
…how poorly Florida's legal system has served Mrs. Schiavo, and to explain the reasons that Congress is taking the extraordinary step of intervening in what normally would be considered a matter solely for a state's judicial system. …Think of an analogy to the writ of habeas corpus. As John Eastman of the Claremont Institute points out, "We have federal court review of state court judgments all the time in the criminal law context." The bill before Congress essentially treats the Florida judgment as a death sentence, warranting federal habeas review. Mrs. Schiavo is not on life support. The court order to remove the feeding tube is an order to starve her to death. Moreover, Mrs. Schiavo is arguably being deprived of her life without due process of law, a violation of the 14th Amendment that Congress has the power to address.
Why the term "precedent" in this case? I was under the impression that legislative bodies are there to make law. Shouldn't concern about "setting precedent" only be relevant to judicial bodies.