The court saw all the evidence; you haven't. The court ruled that there was clear and convincing evidence that Terri did not wish to live under those circumstances. This ruling was upheld at every level of the state and federal judiciary.
It means nothing anymore in terms of fundamental morality what a court rules.
Judges have become, in truth, jack booted thugs ready to beat down the weak, the poor, the humble, on behalf of the strong, the rich, and the powerful.
(To digress from the discussion which is still supposed to center on the question of whether or not the New York Times is consciously, or simply unconsciously, an agent for evil in the real world).
Why do run after a murder? Is one planned, or did one happen -- in your own life?
I'm not a laywer, but from what I've read about this case, the conclusion that there was clear and convincing evidence was reached by Judge Greer and became a finding of fact. From what I read, findings of fact are not reviewed by apellate courts so this key ruling was never challenged by the appeals courts.
Your right about me not hearing all the evidence, but your wrong about the court hearing it all. The court refused to hear all the evidence. The court seems to have relied more heavily on legal precedences and policies that favored the husband as the legal guardian, then on determining her will.
This is just bad policy.
As for the higher courts, if your are even remotely aware and honest about the case you must admit they didn't review this finding from anymore then a statutory "plain error" perspective. And those of us who followed this case years before it became big news, have heard much more evidence on this matter then they had.
In fact, I maintain that my opinion on what she wanted is more reliable then the original judges and the courts. It shouldn't be, but it is. She deserves more a more reliable opinion then mine, but the courts gave her less of one.