According to polls, most of them are okay with it. They'll need some persuading if we're going to change the law.
Greer picked and chose what evidence to admit.
All judges everywhere do that - that's what judges do. We allow them a certain amount of discretion in what comes in and what stays out - they're not judicial machines, after all, and some of it is a judgement call. The mere fact that some of us disagree with the ruling is not prima facie evidence that what the judge did was wrong - half the people who come into civil court wind up disagreeing with the verdict, because that's what courts do. If there was abuse, then the autopsy should still show it - small comfort, I know, but if that was the case then it is still entirely possible that this affair isn't over yet.
I understand judges must make those decisions, but even the most superficial look at what he didn't allow in (coincidentally 90% of it was from Terri's parent's side), it's hard not to conclude there was bias. We're not talking about dividing up grandma's estate here, Terri was a living, breathing human being, he was literally deciding whether she would be allowed to continue living. She had committed no crime, she was an innocent with no voice, but with the same constitutional rights as you or I. As a matter of fact, he was constitutionally mandated to be sure her rights as a handicapped person were not violated under the American with Disabilities Act. Given that, Greer had an extra responsibility to Terri. There's a reason most courthouses have a statue or carving of justice blindfolded and holding a scale. Greer had the blind part right, but failed miserably when it came to balancing the scales.
If I had any doubts about his lack of concern for Terri or her rights they were dispelled with his last 2 rulings. Even if you believe he ruled correctly when ordering her death you can't deny the cruelty he exhibited, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Just because her guardian made a request doesn't mean he had to grant it. He denied her the constitutionally guaranteed right to worship without government interference (supposedly he doesn't even have the authority to do this, but he did) by denying her communion as she lay slowly starving to death. There was NO good reason legal or otherwise to deny her this small connection to humanity, her church and her God. She was a devout Catholic and these are the rites of her church and are sacred. If that wasn't enough, he granted MS permission to have her cremated (while allowed by the church, many Catholics are still uncomfortable with it) and sent to Pennsylvania so that even in death she would be unable to be mourned and cared for by her friends and family. These are not unbiased rulings and would in no way violate his death ruling. She would still die on schedule, just with a little more compassion. Instead, she died with her "husband", a man who could barely hide his contempt for her in public and his freaky lawyer for whom the "death process" was practically orgasmic at her side. I can barely comprehend any of this it's so disgusting.