Wallace all you do is accuse those who disagree with you of being liberals or trolls. Can't you allow for the chance that someone may trust the decision of over 20 judges, and 15 years of appeals? You need to understand that you are not the authority on what is consevitive and what is a liberal talking point. So many of your arguments are weakened by the fact that you come off as so very arrogant. Try and get over yourself enough to understand that this is not as clear-cut a case as you want it to be.
I do not claim to be 100% correct on this issue, thats why I'm up at 12:38 discussing it. Rather than insulting people why don't you try and convinve them you are correct.
The judicial review to which you refer did not, to my understanding, conduct another analysis of the findings of the original court of jurisdiction. All the higher levels of the Florida judiciary relied on the findings of Judge Greer. The conduct and fairness of this civil servant must be questioned, as he rejected or refused to admit into evidence information that contradicted Michael Schiavo's assertion that his wife was in a permanent vegetative state. Nor did he call into question Michael Schiavo's right to be the primary caretaker of his wife, in spite of abundant evidence, not admitted into Greer's court, that should have disqualified him.
If conservatism in the American sense means anything, it is to support the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness outlined in the Declaration of Independence. The right of Teresa Marie Schiavo to life is in imminent danger due to what appears to be an unjust decision by Judge Greer, rubber stamped by the Florida judiciary, of "hanging chad" infamy. Supporting the right to life is a foundational principle of American conservatism.
If standing for the right is arrogant, make the most of it.
Perhaps Wallace is "arrogant," although I haven't seen that in reading a couple of his posts.
However, there's little question that the judiciary has become arrogant. In the Schiavo case, Greer has managed to become the very symbol of Judicial Arrogance, through the simple expedient of ignoring the requirement to "choose life." While Greer is not the first jurist to go this route, (Roe v Wade's majority was...) he is the first who has achieved national exposure by ignoring this principle on a living adult.
I have no idea what motivates Greer (and the rest of the FLA appeals-types, or for that matter the Federalistas who have simply contravened the will of Congress in the last 3 days.) I have no idea why Greer does not examine evidence which tends to contradict that which he has already examined. I have no idea why he does not say "Well, there are newer and better medical technologies which may give me a better understanding of Terri's condition...."
But I DO have an idea that this arrogant jackass Greer has gone a long way toward demolishing the concept that the United States is a "chosen land." And the consequences of his arrogance have yet to be played out--but they will be significant.
He has certainly assisted those who are making the case that the Judiciary as a whole is out of control and in LaLaLand. Further, he is personally making the case that Judges Will Not Be Questioned.
Only 140 years ago, the US lost 600 thousand men partially over the Dred Scott decision.
My response to Greer: your decision cannot stand in any society which respects First Things. It MUST not stand.