Though the Florida Legislature declared it to be so in 1999, it was not so at the time Terri made her remarks about 'tubes'. Suppose that the legislature were to declare that 'artificial life support' included the purchasing and acquisition of foodstuffs. Would it be legitimate to interpret a living-will request of 'no life support' as authorizing the starvation of anyone who couldn't get themselves to the store to buy their own food?
"Though the Florida Legislature declared it to be so in 1999, it was not so at the time Terri made her remarks.."
Really good argument supercat, and what you wrote afterward was showed excellent logic. In a perfect world, that's the way that judges would be expected to reason. Trouble is that reason and truth mean nothing today, only their own agendas.