[jude24]

Passing a law protecting Terri Schiavo is NOT a bill of attainder. A Bill of Attainder applies ONLY to CRIMINAL acts, not civil judgments.

It's the civil equivalent of a Bill of Attainder. As I said before. It may not be unconstitutional under the Bill of Attainder clause, but it certainly is under the Equal Protection Clause. There cannot be a unique jurisdictional for Terri Schaivo alone. That blatently violates the Equal Protection Clause.

[goldstategop]

Considering time was growing short, it was about all Congress could do. It turned out to fall short since the federal courts had no intention of obeying the law.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[P-Marlowe]

It's the civil equivalent of a Bill of Attainder.

Jude, there is no such thing as "civil equivalent" of a Bill of Attainder. What kind of silly judical fiction are you attempting to write? Are they teaching you that crap in law school?

As far as "equal protection" goes, the constitution is not violated by specifically giving one person rights that another person has not specifically been given, but only if one person is DENIED rights freely given to entire groups of other people. All congress attempted to do was to give Terri a right that others could also petition congress for pursuant to Amendment III.

As far as equal protection is concerned, "statutes create many classifications which do not deny equal protection; it is only 'invidious discrimination' which offends the Constitution." Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 732 (1963); Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 489 (1955).

What is invidious about trying to save Terri Schiavo's life from the clutches of judicial tyranny?

I take it you have not taken your Con-Law final yet?

[xzins]

No one has been denied equal protection, and Congress has acted within its authority.

Congress can pass a bill that affects the judiciary. If you know that much, then you know all you need to know.