[Cboldt]

I'm less convinced that the federal courts didn't do what they had to do given the facts and the pleadings. They certainly weren't given anything in the first round of filings and, realistically, it was probably too late from a clinical standpoint for Terry when they were given a second chance to intervene.

FWIW, the dissenting judge noted, in the opinion published on March 23, that his opinion of "preservation of status quo" as envisioned by Congress required the resumption of feeding. Even if the matter wasn't framed for a de novo review of the facts; following legislative intent as intepreted by the dissenting judge was probably not too late from a medical clinical point.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305opn11.pdf <-

I'm really not interested in rehashing the case at this point. It'll be rehashed by better scholars than me, and I'm content to wait for them to finish their analyses. Like I said, my general point is that just about every aspect of this case is arguable. Except on FR ;-)

[Dog Gone]

That was during the first set of pleadings when it might have made a difference if the "status quo" had been observed by reinserting the tube.

By the time the Schindlers' attorneys started making the right arguments, and I still don't think they did it with the second bite, she was nearly dead and surely in a permanently worse condition than before. The war was lost no matter how a current battle might be won.