No, it does not. The law specifies that an incapacitated person has the right to a guardian - it does not specify that a guardian ad litem must be appointed, and there is no legal reason that Michael Schiavo cannot serve the functions of a guardian ad litem, unless and until the court determines that a conflict renders him unable to serve as a proper guardian of his wife's interests. Please don't make thing up, not when anyone can go read the statute and see you're just plain full of it.
Second, I stated that Judge Greer dismissed the GAL at the behest of the opposing counsel. Considering that Greer's ruling wrongfully deprived Terri of her RETAINED RIGHTS TO COUNSEL AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS, and that this was due to the judge's favoring one of the litigating parties, my analogy holds.
You can't be serious. Who else was going to object? Who else had standing to object? You cannot possibly take the fact that one party was successful as evidence of "bias" - one of them was inevitably going to be successful. By this absurd "logic" of yours, if the judge had ordered the retention of the guardian ad litem that would be "evidence" of some sort of bias against Michael Schiavo. Which is frankly, ridiculous.
Second, the demonstration of adequate need is implicit in the text of the statute.
Oh, it's "implicit" is it? Which penumbra are you emanating that stinky little business from? So much for conservative jurisprudence, strict constructionism, or any of those things - principles get in the way of what we want, so we'll just toss them out in favor of "implicit" readings of the law. Hey, you're in good company, though - Harry Blackmun found an "implicit" right to privacy and abortion in the constitution. Sheesh.
That proof, by the way, still exists. You consider this to be mere disagreement with the judge's opinion?
Yeah, basically, because that's all it is. If it were perfectly crystal clear to everyone whether some law applied or not, we wouldn't need judges at all. We'd all just look at the situation, and the correct answer would be immediately obvious to everyone.
But we don't live in that kind of fantasy, your efforts to declare otherwise notwithstanding. The fact is that opinions vary on whether someone has violated the law, what the law means, whether some law applies to some situation. That's why we appoint judges, to sort among the competing claims and exercise their judgement. You may cartainly disagree with that judgement, and your opinion may even be a better supported one than the judge's, but to pretend that your opinions are objective fact is simply ridiculous. Get over yourself - you are not some oracular font of objective truth.
It is the judge who utters OPINIONS, and these opinions cannot be diametrically opposite the letter and intent of the law. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? The law said that the GAL was Terri's RETAINED RIGHT, and the judge nullified that right.
See, here you go making stuff up again - the law says that a guardian is a right. It does not specify that it must be a guardian ad litem. Oh, wait - I forgot. You have some sort of crystal ball which allows you to divine the true meaning of the law, nevermind the language. What was I thinking?
Show me that a law I cite does not exist or that an action I attributed to Judge Greer was not committed. Do that or hold your tongue.
Well, gosh, I think I'll just settle for showing that your interpretation is BS and that your reasoning is worthless. Sorry I don't have your permission to post in that manner, but then again I don't recall the TOS here specifying that your permission is necessary for me to post, newbie.
You see, the whole problem you have is that where the law actually says "guardian", you're getting all squishy on me and adding extra words that aren't there to make it into "guardian ad litem". Well, it'd sure make things easy for you if that were so, but unfortunately, it's pretty obvious that since your case is entirely built on an incorrect reading of the law, you've built your house on sand here. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, I'm sorry you've embarrassed yourself in public like this, but that's a real fact right there - the law says "guardian", not "guardian ad litem" no matter how much leftist jurisprudence you're prepared to employ.
general_re,
You are grasping at straws.
Come to terms with the fact that Florida statutes declare counsel and access to the courts as retained right. Seek to understand the term retained as signifying guaranteed. Disabuse yourself of the notion that anyone other than the incapacitated person holds that right. Realize that "counsel" only refers to the guardian ad litem, not to the guardian, whose functions are dealt with in other sections of the law. Give up your convulsive clinging to the silly distinction between "right" and "must have."
The retained right means that the incapacitated person cannot be without a guardian ad litem in a matter before the court. It is not up to a judge to determine that there is no need for one. It is entirely contrary to the intent of the law for the guardian to suggest that there is no need for a GAL. The law does not make it the judge's function to determine whether there should be a GAL.
Frankly, your pathetic attempts to dissimulate don't speak well of you. Admitting that you don't know would be a lot more honorable than your transparent pretense. Enjoy your ruminating.