judicial reviews upheld the decison over a dozen times now.
Ipso facto there is no systematic bias? Is that what you are trying to say?
And that proves what? Do you know for certain the evidence for why Schiavo has negated himself as Terri's proxy has been introduced? And how can the judge review the case look at everything from square one and look at any new evidence in the 1-2 hours they are "dedicating" to the hearing?
The judges are covering one another in this. None of them have the moral courage to do the right thing and stop this case in it's tracks and stop Terri from dying.
Upheld because one cannot appeal a finding of fact, only a finding of law.
But do you think if it's true that the attorneys in this case have contributed money to Greer's election, that perhaps the findings of fact are themselves flawed and biased, that perhaps we need a new judge to re-evalute the facts of the case?