[txrangerette]

"Did the SCOTUS give any reasons for not overturning the lower courts in this case?"

The Supremes never took the case, so they never had to give their opinion. They simply silently refused to hear the appeal.

For what it's worth, Judge Bork said on Hannity's radio show that he knew the Supremes would not take the appeal, because he knows they would never take a case about any law that was only about one person...in this case, Terri Schiavo. Yes, we know it had wider implications, but the law itself was only about Terri. He said it was doomed not to be heard, and the Congress should have known that.

[Theodore R.]

But in 1963, the SCOTUS took the so-called "pauper's petition" from Clarence Gideon, who claimed that he was falsely convicted for burglary of a vending machine at a FL -- yes, FL -- pool hall. SCOTUS ordered a new trial with a court-appointed lawyer, and Mr. Gideon was acquitted. Thousands of others similarly situated got new trials too. Therefore, public-funded lawyers became a staple for the poor accused of any felonies. There is a book about this by the popular liberal author Anthony Lewis, whose wife is the MA Supreme Court chief justice who ordered "gay marriage" in 2004. Lewis called his book Gideon's Trumpet.

[mblaise]

"For what it's worth, Judge Bork said on Hannity's radio show that he knew the Supremes would not take the appeal, because he knows they would never take a case about any law that was only about one person...in this case, Terri Schiavo. Yes, we know it had wider implications, but the law itself was only about Terri. He said it was doomed not to be heard, and the Congress should have known that."

seems that the SCOTUS ruled for one person in bush v. gore.. when i read the opinion of the majority they were quite explicit that their ruling in that case applied ONLY to that case, and wasn't to set any precedent or apply to any future case. so what gives here?