Which ones? Could you give citations? Does "not applied in the way I agree with" qualify as "completely ignored"?
They are no longer men (or women) of principle. Now, judges are men and women of sentiment.
It is odd that the same people who were accusing Judge Greer and the appellate judges of being cold monsters are now claiming that they are being ruled by sentiment instead.
Why was only one man, Judge Greer, the determinant of the facts in Terri's case?
Because that's the way Florida wrote its statute. Different proceedings will or will not involve a jury, depending upon what the law says.
Actually, sentiment has several connotations, only 1 of which is the "emotional" sentiment that you are tying to being "cold monster". Sentiment, at its core, is temporary. Principle is enduring and principle should always be a permanent and controlling. Sentiment is not virtuous, whereas being principled is. Everyone feels the sentiment, as evidence by the general passion on both sides of this issue.
But, the judge had (and has had for a long time) clear evidence that this wasn't a normal situation. Not only are there many questions still lingering about how Terri actually was originally injured, but there are documented cases of abuse of Terri.
The judge in this case has acted on his sentiments, not principles of goodness and justice. Letting an innocent woman starve to death at the hearsay of a spouse and a spouses' brother, with contrary hearsay statements from other loved ones and not allowing a review by an impartial party doesn't seem to be principled or just.
When an impartial party --Richard Pearse-- was introduced to evaluate Terri and he found that there was reason to treat Terri, that there was indeed hope for recovery (though, not a full recovery), and that pulling the plug shouldn't be done, he was "fired" by Michael. The judge upheld that.
The judge also sits on the board of this Hospice. That seems to be a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, which as far as a judge is concerned is enough to remove themselves from the case.
Judge Greer has let all kinds of factors (i.e., sentiments) influence his decisions, none of which were principled.
And, that's my opinion (which may only last for so long, that is until a judge somewhere decides that being who I am (or what I am) is no longer a reason for me to live and decides to off me).
You may think that's a slippery-slope, but judges have been and continue to accumulate power over the citizenry. Law enforcement can and will execute a judge's order without question. And, if you can't defend yourself, you're screwed. If the government decides to take your stuff, you will put yourself in the poor house (4 times over), just trying to clear your name. Your life (or what's left of it) will be harmed.
Allowing judges to have that much power seems to be a problem to me. And, the common thread that runs through all of these judicial excesses? Sentiments; not principles.
Just WHO wrote the Florida statutes? Was it the legislature? Or was it a designated end-of-life panel whom the legislature allowed to make law as they saw fit.
What control does the population have over a panel making laws that affect the lives of the population?
To me, it would seem this would be illegal as they are not elected and the laws were made without a legislative vote.
Uh, the one where Congress told the Federal Courts they must review the case de novo. Where have you been for the last 3 weeks?