Laws are meant to provide justice. Everyone recognizes that they do so imperfectly, but it is the best we can do.
There are many checks in the law to prevent an injustice from being done. For example, a person convicted and sentenced by the judiciary can be pardoned by the executive.
Terri's case falls into a place where many feel a grave injustice is being done, but the law has provided no way to correct it. A case where a person is being unjusticely killed is one of the most extreme cases, if not the most extreme case, where an injustice can happen. This is not a common everyday event.
For the executive to step in and stop the killing of Terri is the exception to the rule of law, taken under the most extreme and rare of cases, and it is taken to save a life, not to take a life, or provide some benefit in an unjust manner. If the executive were to abuse such a power, what are the likely penalties? Impeachment by the legislature, or a recall election in some states, or not being re-elected in the next election. Are these not sufficient checks, both on the judiciary and the executive?
I disagree, the laws are made by the legislature,that's the way it was designed, to have the lawmakers be the group most accountable to the people. For the legislature to make unmake or change a law is perfectly in keeping the "rule of law" For the judiciary to make or change law is NOT. The mandate is only to clarify ambiguities not legislate
#7 is well said.