Well .. if you had bothered to check my page - I don't live in FL - but that doesn't mean that I cannot see a flawed judge. Greer didn't just abuse "his discretion" - he ignored legitimate testimony against Michael because it suited him - that's irresponsible.
Yes, we need to get more involved - and we need to be explaining to our congress persons that THEY HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THE COURTS (because those judges are appointed not elected) .. and I've seen congress people who DO NOT KNOW THAT - or if they do - they are saying that congress should not have gotten involved.
Well .. if you had bothered to check my page - I don't live in FL I usually don’t check pages because I just don’t have the time, but even if you don’t live in Florida, if you vote you will have the same opportunity in your state.
Greer didn't just abuse "his discretion" - he ignored legitimate testimony against Michael because it suited him - that's irresponsible. I can’t argue that point since I have no way of knowing the Judge’s motives. The press has not reported the intricacies of the law, so it is quite possible that if we were to make a thorough investigation we might find that the problem is with how the law is written and not what Judge Greer did?
For example: "Proxy" means a competent adult who has not been expressly designated to make health care decisions for a particular incapacitated individual, but who, nevertheless, is authorized pursuant to s. 765.401 to make health care decisions for such individual.
(2) Any health care decision made under this part must be based on the proxy's informed consent and on the decision the proxy reasonably believes the patient would have made under the circumstances. If there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, the proxy may consider the patient's best interest in deciding that proposed treatments are to be withheld or that treatments currently in effect are to be withdrawn.s765.401.
(3) Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest.
So you see it is not a simple as it first might appear.
You should find a good book on the separation of powers. I think you will be surprised to find the congressmen do know their limits. The recent emergency law that congress passed, that the President returned to Washington to sign in the middle of the night, was all the Constitutional authority they could exercise.
I know you will hear people making statements about the law, but many of them are just “jailhouse lawyers” do not rely upon what they are saying. It is more rhetoric than law and it is designed more to mold public opinion than it is to educate.