Replies

Articulate, cogent and accurate. The ideologues have the knee-jerk response that whenever a judge basis a decision on the law as they must be applied to the facts in the trial or appellate record that is contrary to their fervently held ideological tenents and political agenda the court must therefore be (1) liberal and (2) making new law from the bench. That was foolish when it first surfaced in the New Deal era wwhen the courts initially struck down child labor laws, interstate commerce regulated business conduct and several other acts. It was asserted once again when several states sought to interpose their state laws (by those who are now bulwarks of the Republican Party) in an effort to block the several civil rights laws.

One would think, or at least hope, that legally trained voices such as that shrill, unhumorous and fervently ideological Laura Ingraham would exhibit at least a modicum of intellectual honesty on this subject. But it has become obvious that, notwithstanding her supposed training in logical thought obtained from a good law school and a Supreme Court clerkship, she has become a bought-and-paid- for shill for the fringe on the Right It is apparent that she, and the demegogue-in-chief, Rush Limbaugh, would happily find some cockemamie rationale, seeking to support attemptseeking to negate the several civil rights laws and maintain the horrific former segregation and Jim Crow laws and policies of the South. Those attempts failed when engaged in by those who are now in the leadership roles of the GOP.

Now the mantra about "activist" courts is shouted again because courts apply state and federal law notwithstanding the hue and cry of a discrete segment of society who seek to coerce courts to make decisions consistent with their ldeological, religious and political agendas. The prayers of the sane segment of society must be that judges remain unaffected and continue to ignore the screams and threats of the lame brains who haven't a clue as to what are intended to do.

Courts do not bend to the will of a bunch of loudmouth politicians and single issue political hacks, ulterior motive driven politicians hading behind the false cloak of religion and their unthinking, slavish followers.

For a bunch of activists whose recurrent theme is to keep government out of our lives, they seem to easily put that dogma aside when it comes to who sleeps with whom, what books and movies we can read or view without the FBI noting our conduct or that those who differ from them becomce a mob when they seek redress vis-a-vis the "good" citizens merely expressing an opinion when they congregate to block entrances to lawful businesses or to interfere with the execution of lawful court orders, their situational ethics are astounding.

Speaking of judges, the much maligned and threatened George Greer simply followed the law as it exists,

He did not. He made a finding of fact, not supported by the Guardian Ad Litem employed for Terri Schiavo, when he declared the death sentence for Terri.

The Law

(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.