[Destro]

If we were to open the doors of federal courts to every losing side in a guardianship case, or a child custody case, or any other matter traditionally left to state courts, we would be changing the very nature of the balance between federal power and states' rights. And we would be doing so at the request of politicians who have spent a generation trumpeting states' rights over the intrusion of federal power.

[goldstategop]

Hogwash. The reverse is true. The party screaming loudest for hands-off in the particular case of the Schiavos is the same party that has successfully federalized every other local and state case. What gives?

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Kozak]

And we would be doing so at the request of politicians who have spent a generation trumpeting states' rights over the intrusion of federal power.

Ah. But when the left wants to overturn the will of the people, Federalism suddenly vanishes. Abortion. Gay Marriage. Death penalty for minors. But try to uphold a fundamental right like say, giving water to helpless person, a violation of basic rights if I ever saw one, THAT the federal government has no oversight of.

[nickcarraway]

How can this be a states' rights issue when Judge Greer is going against Florida state law, and making new presidence. Understand that Judge Greer is making new law and going against existing Florida law. According to your claim, Judge Greer is the state of Florida, and the existing laws, the governor, current and former legislature, and the citizens aren't the state of Florida. Judge Greer doesn't have the right to unilaterally change state law. That is why your states' rights argument is bogus.

[djreece]

Protecting a person's life is a fundamental principle of our government. There is a federal responsibility in such cases.

[L.N. Smithee]

If we were to open the doors of federal courts to every losing side in a guardianship case, or a child custody case, or any other matter traditionally left to state courts, we would be changing the very nature of the balance between federal power and states' rights.

Oh, come on. This wasn't supposed to set a precedent. This situation is unique -- it involves not just custody or guardianship, but whether a disabled adult should be allowed to continue living or starved to death. This law was in the spirit of a death row appeal, not "Who gets the kids?"

[mhking]

If we were to open the doors of federal courts to every losing side in a guardianship case, or a child custody case, or any other matter traditionally left to state courts, we would be changing the very nature of the balance between federal power and states' rights.

Exactly! This needs to be trumpeted from the rooftops.