You fool. The 11th Circuit Federal Appeals Court which three or four times rejected Terri's claims is the most conservative court in the US. We want courts like the 11th which are strict constructionists and dont invent rights. We have enough activist Godless judges on the left. We dont need to create religious zealot activist judges too.
Our goal is to protect life, not to play legalistic games.
The 11th Circuit Court of appeals may be "the most conservative court", but it abetted in the judicial murder of a helpless woman.
That is not the sort of conservatism that I want, support, or have tried to advance.
That perhaps suits you, but it does not suit me.
The purpose of law is to protect life. If the law does not protect life, it is bad, no matter who holds the gavel.
If the "strict constructionist" approach cannot save the life of a helpless woman from being killed by thirst under armed guard - and it manifestly didn't, if you're saying that the result WAS a "strict constructionist" result, then pro-lifers cannot support that approach.
The result is the goal: protection of life.
If strict constructionism is protective of life, as we were led to believe it was, then it should be part of the toolbox. But if it won't protect life, as you are saying it didn't in the case of Terri Schiavo, then it is not an approach to law that those who believe life is sacred are going to be able to support.
YOU want courts that are strict constructionist.
I want courts that will apply the law to protect life.
If those two things look down the same sightline, we are allies. But my objective is not to work to get courts you approve of, whose judicial philosophy won't protect life.
Any Judge who accepted that Florida Order to Murder as legal is G-d-less. And heartless. And to the extent this kind of thing continues -- the mortal enemy of those who wish to live.