Some have never been pleased. The perpetual malcontents, the libertarians, the Patsies, the black helicopter crowd -- they all have one beef or another and all blame the failures of the world on "both parties."
This is a specific issue about a specific case, for me. It's about Terri and Michael Schiavo and Felos and Greer and the formerly-Hemlock Society. This is not about larger issues because we simply cannot operate that way. The fact is, I believe that when Michael shacked up, he abandonded his rights over Terri's care. If the Schindlers were given care and wanted to pull the plug, fine. If they wanted to keep her alive and were willing to take responsibility for that decision, fine. If Terri had had a living will with specifics, then neither of them gets to decide.
I believe President Bush had it 100% right: We err on the side of life. And this case is full of erring. The best decision is to keep her alive if there is this conflict and the crackhead judge insists on keeping Michael involved in this.
But causing a potentially fatal confrontation at the hospice defeats the entire purpose of fighting for life in the first place.
Start your macros.
In all honesty, I ask you this: do you think bad law should be made for one, admittedly awful, case?
It's a common refrain here, one that has probably been suggested at least 10,000 times in the last month alone.
The fact is that we're a nation of laws, courts, and executive powers.
Florida law says that shacking up with a woman doesn't end a marriage, create a new one, or do anything.
So your problem is with the law.
But when you blame the judges for not enforcing your moral opinion of what the law should be, but what it is, then you're mad.
Everyone on this forum wants to blame the judges. They too are dealt the hands they get.