If you want the federal courts to review every single one of these end-of-life situations, we're gonna have to have A LOT more judges.
"If you want the federal courts to review every single one of these end-of-life situations, we're gonna have to have A LOT more judges."
Congress and the President addressing America's health care issues one citizen at a time?
Judge Bork said the other day that the Courts would never be able to keep up with looking at individual cases one after the other -- way too many of them. Said this case is not unique and the judges needed to rule on the law not emotions. Wish some people on here could have heard him but then they would have had to open their ears so they could hear.
It would help if the state courts would actually review cases where a life is at stake instead of taking any decision a lower court makes as gospel and reviewing only the bureaucratic procedural typing of the briefs. If the state is going to grant a license to kill a non-dying individual (roughly, to provide immunity from prosecution for murder, even by neglect), then it is obligated to evaluate the logic, reasoning and evidence used by the State in the case before the considerable and irreversable procedure is undertaken.
And certainly have more responsibility of review in cases with as many questionable details (such as "really, Judge, I SWEAR she wanted to be killed, really, no foolin'") as this one has.
There doesn't have to be...there ought to be enough compelling evidence one way or another applied to the case from both sides of a contested case where each side has a standing..M. Schiavo should have none(considering what he's done)...case closed...Sinkspur, you never cease to amaze me...Why you don't become a Dimmycrat, I'll never know...