How can one rationally analyze something while making irrational statements like the one above?
How can one be a "constitutionalist" while endorsing a states right to order the death of it's citizens absent criminality and then argue against federal judicial review?
Sorry, the analysis isn't rational. There were excesses on both sides but your link does nothing to present a rational view of the case.
The issues being contended were fourfold:
First, does an obviously conflicted husband (See the Florida 2DCA where they admit he is conflicted) have the right to decide life and death issues concerning his spouse.
Second, can the state order the death of a citizen absent criminality.
And third, when a state orders that death, should federal judicial review be available as per the 14th Amendment.
And finally, when is a human being no longer a human being.
Your "rational" analysis leaves those questions unanswered or answers in a a manner I find irrational.
Since all of your points were addressed in the essay, you and I apparently start from very different premises.
In determining whether something is legally right or wrong, the motives of those in the debate are not relevant. My whole essay avoids judgment of the family members. The focus is on the involvement--inappropriate involvement, in my estimation--of groups with agendas, turning Terry Schiavo into an ideological football. You obviously have no problem with that misuse of a family tragedy.
Bump.