So it all boils down to WHO gets to kill her? Yes, who, not whether.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sandra Day O'Connor noticed a disturbing development as her last day on the Supreme Court neared. Over her final years on the bench, more people were talking about "activist judges," an issue she said that appeared to be "erupting all over the country."
Snip....
In 2005, two court cases that caught the public's attention and the president's choices for new Supreme Court justices made the judiciary a political fireball, prompting an intense debate on how judges should operate.
The Terri Schiavo case turned on who, if anyone, had the legal right to allow Schiavo, who was ruled by lower courts to be in a "persistent vegetative state," to die. Despite attempts from Republicans lawmakers and President Bush to intervene by passing a law pertaining to the case, the Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the matter and she died days after her feeding tube was removed.
O'Connor: Don't call us 'activist judges'
8mm
That's because this ONE judge in ONE case subverted justice by his prejudicial rulings. That's "unusual" too (we hope!), but it desperately needed review. The higher courts do not, as a rule, overturn findings of fact by lower courts. That is a huge flaw in the system. It allowed one biased judge to put an innocent disabled woman to death. He simply chose the evidence he wanted to hear and excluded or ruled against everything else.
The higher courts had a primary duty to uphold constitutional law, not to provide shelter for a rogue judge on the lame principle that you always do provide such shelter. Moreover the act of Congress specifically allowed for your review de novo. You had no excuse for playing politics.
So it all boils down to WHO gets to kill her? Yes, who, not whether.
How about Wacktivist Judges?