[tallhappy]

You are not familar with the case.

The judge directed the removal. He did not grant the right for Schiavo to make the decsion, the judge took that authority and made the decision in the name of the US government.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[XJarhead]

He did not grant the right for Schiavo to make the decsion, the judge took that authority and made the decision in the name of the US government.

Hey, I never knew that a state court judge could issue a decision in the name of the U.S. government. That's a new one on me!

You don't know what you are talking about.

Pot, meet kettle.

[billbears]

The judge directed the removal. He did not grant the right for Schiavo to make the decsion, the judge took that authority and made the decision in the name of the US government.

Okay. I suppose he did. With the conspiratorial sheriff's department huh? Don't let anything like the facts get in your way....

From the Court of Appeals decision in Florida on 2001

>This is a case to authorize the termination of life-prolonging procedures under chapter 765, Florida Statutes (1997), and under the constitutional guidelines enunciated in In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla.1990).

From the original decision in 2000 by Greer

The controlling legal authority in this area is a case which arose in St. Petersburg....The court is called upon to apply the law as set forth in In re: Guardianship of Estelle M Browning, supra, to the facts of this case

--------------

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Petition for Authorization to Discontinue Artificial Life Support of Michael Schiavo, Guardian of the Person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, an incapacitated person, be and the same is hereby granted and the Petitioner/Guardian is hereby authorized to proceed with the discontinuance of said artificial life support for Theresa Marie Schiavo

So this is what we have. You stated that Greer did not grant the right for Schiavo to make the decision. The decision very clearly states Schiavo is authorized to proceed with discontinuance. Therefore, you were wrong. You stated the judge took that authority and made the decision in the name of the US government. As he is a state judge, you were wrong. Also he took no authority but only upheld current precedent, which makes him a non-activist judge. Again, you were wrong. These are the facts of the case and nothing but.

You are not familar with the case....You don't know what you are talking about.

You were saying?