And I have read each published opinion in this case and reached my own conclusions regarding how it has been handled. Sorry, but I don't see the conspiracy that many on this thread see.
Are you familiar with what multiple experts on brain functions having been saying about Ms. Schiavo. There are many, many experts who have been saying that Ms. Schiavo is not brain dead or in a persistent vegitative state. So if you have competing experts on Ms. Schiavo's mental state, do you think the burden of proof, as it has clearly been placed here, should be on those who want Ms. Schiavo to remain alive? For that matter, do you think the factual presentation with respect to killing someone should be cutoff at the trial. It isn't in death penalty cases? In fact, the presumption is exactly the opposite. The courts bend over backwards where a criminal is being put to death to determine if there is any evidence that has been left out that might show that a death penalty defendant is innocent. Why should the process be different for someone who is being put to death by the courts and who is not a criminal?