Actually, viewed in a particular way, the courts do have troops. They have the power to issue contempt of court judgements, without further review, I believe. It is this power to financially carve up anyone who disagrees with them, or stands in their way, that sets them apart from the other branches of government, and enables a creeping tyranny.
If Governor Bush or various legislators wish to penalize those with who they disagree, they may arrest them, but must,in the end, rely on a conviction/judgement from the courts to penalize. The only certain check is the power of the Governor to pardon. How can this apply to civil issues? Should this not be explored, even if it is too late in this case?
I cannot believe that the power seized by the judiciary was ever envisioned in the founding of the Republic. But many here perhaps can help me and others to a fuller understanding.
Excellent post, watchdog...
Actually, besides the pardon, there is prosecutorial discretion as well. E.g., the acriminal adultery statute in Florida is enforced rarely, if at all.
Civil courts only carry out money judgements. They don't incarceraate or condemn criminals. In this case, the court holds itself out as follwing the patient's wishes. As we can see, there is not much of a hurdel to find the pateint's wisehs, and if that finding is incorrect (either way), it stands review by higher courts, provided the process is followed.
This is a "case" of first immpression, with the combination of life/death in a civil trial (which usually only divides money up among the contestants) and an entrenched judiciary that may have commited factual error. Very interesting times indeed. I suspect, FWIW, that there are civil trial swhere the appellate court does in fact review the evidence. Especially where the judgement is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Couldn't cite one, but additures, remitteurs, and reversals must, maybe one in a thousand, hinge on the facts and not on the law. I think the reversl of punitiva award in the McDonald's Coffee-burn case hinged on a review of the evidence.