"An unbiased trial court found by clear and convincing evidence what her desires were."
You have no evidence that the court was unbiased, much less that the evidence was clear and convincing. There was contrary testimony.
"Then that process was reviewed for fairness and sufficiency of the evidence by over 40 judges on five courts in a total of 15 appellate reviews over 7 years and affirmed each time."
Actually, no, all of the subsequent judges ducked and ran from the issue. No judge actually reviewed or affirmed anything except that they did not want to get involved.
You have no evidence -- except a result with which you disagree for a priori reasons -- that there was any bias. We have elaborate rules for disqualification and recusal of judges for bias. No one -- not even here -- has suggested that any of those should have applied to any judge who heard or reviewed the matter. The judges who reviewed and decided the case were unbiased.
The fact that there was "contrary testimony" doesn't mean a thing. There is always contrary testimony in every lawsuit, otherwise it wouldn't go to trial. If there is no dispute in the testimony, the case is decided on legal motion prior to trial (usually on cross-motions for summary judgment). Such comments just show how little you folks understand about legal disputes.
And here's another news flash for the uninitiated: contrary testimony doesn't always mean someone is 'lying.' As in this case, wise judges generally see if there isn't some way that all witnesses who otherwise appear to be truthful might be telling the truth. That's what happened here.
All of the subsequent judges ducked and ran from the issue. No judge actually reviewed or affirmed anything except that they did not want to get involved.
That is just not true. No judge ever said he didn't want to be involved. All of the reviewing judges applied applicable law -- including propriety of trial court evidentiary rulings and sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict -- and sustained the trial court finding.
Let's face it. You folks, just don't like the result: the idea of other people having the right to die. That's really your objection. You don't like the idea that someone had the necessary male equipment to find that Terri really wanted to die -- as I also am convinced from the evidence that she did -- and then had the temerity to make that legal finding. Then, you're really upset that the appellate and reviewing judges couldn't be stampeded by your incoherent, a piori stomping and shouting -- as the pandering politicians were -- into giving you your way at poor Terri's expense.