Quote:
Originally posted by SummerChild
Actually, Tony, if it is a state law issue, the feds are supposed to stay out of it. The state supreme court is the ultimate interpreter of state law. Now, it might actually be a federal issue since they are making it into what sounds like a constitutional rights issue with the right to life twist.
I wish that I could quickly locate the bill that passed so that I can read it for myself. It seems like what happened was the House passed a bill giving jurisdiction for the federal court to review the state court's decision. If this is the case, that's bogus because jurisdiction is defined by the Constitution, not the legislators.
This same bologna happened when Baby Bush didn't like the finding of the Florida state supreme court in Gore v. Bush. They took it to the Federal Supreme Court and tried to make it into a federal issue when there really still is a question as to whether or not the feds had jurisdiction to take it.
It's the same garbage in a new garbage can.
I wish that I could remember whether the constitution-based best interests standard is rebuttable based upon evidence that the person is not in the best interest of the person being spoken for. I think that if there is no dispute as to the best interests, however (although there always is), I think that the husband has the say.
|
If I'm not mistaken didn't the Federal Supreme Court refuse this case twice?
I think starvation is cruel but I can't help but see the sad irony in pulling the feeding tube now considering she ended up in this situation because of an eating disorder.
