Judges are intent on establishing that a judge's ruling is supreme and unchallengeable law, and therefore they ignore a recently passed statute to uphold judicial rulings. All while claiming to be preserving a "nation of laws."

These judgements droppeth as a harsh hail from hell / On the woman beneath.

It's interesting, at the very least, that (according to NR Online) it was Clinton appointee Wilson who dissented in the appeals court ruling. That goes against the conventional wisdom that it's only Republicans that want to keep Schiavo alive, and only for political purposes, but the media ignored all the Democratic votes in the Senate in favor of that action on Sunday, and it's clear the federal judiciary in general doesn't want to have anything to do with the case.

Every time I think about Terry Schiavo, I think about Elian Gonzalez...Sadly, I think the outcome will be the same. With Easter approaching, one hell of a coincidence.

Also, I would like to know why is it that the legal will of the legislatures of a State and the Federal Government is not deemed as legitimate as the legal will of a judge here or there.

I second Moe's question. How is it that the co-equal judicial branch is more equal than the other two?

Because the Courts get the last word and lifetime tenure makes them unaccountable to anyone except those who invite them to DC cocktail parties where there's lots of really good free food. This is where once seemingly reasonable people get imbued with notions like deference to Luxembourgisch criminal law or Upper Voltaic definitions of marriage.

If Congress were to pass a law stating that 'The feeding tube shall be reattached to Terri Schiavo,' then I don't understand how a Court could intervene to invalidate that decision. It might, as I do, see it as unwise public policy, but it is strictly a matter of legislative purview to which the courts must defer. By contrast, if Congress were to pass a law stating 'Terri Schiavo must be detached from the feeding tube' that would run afoul of the Bill of Attainder clause.

One would hope that this will convince the Senate to finally crush the filibuster and approve the blocked judges. The courts matter, and too many of those sitting on them appear to think that they are all that does. This is 100% thumbing their noses at Congress.

Also, after this it's hard to see Condi, Rudy, or any other socially squishy candidates even being viable VP candidates in '08...

In answer to Moe's question, judges have come to enjoy their status. They perceive themselves to be oracles, or perhaps benign masters, over the always suspect executive branch and those damned whores in the legislature.

To be sure, the executive and legislative branches deserve blame, and they have punted on difficult questions so often that the judiciary probable scorns them reflexively, but this case shows why Congress (and the state legislatures) need to start bounding the judiciary.

this sad episode will mark the high water mark of the bush administration; its all down hill from here. if they can't/won't save this woman, then how will they muster the guts to get their judges through, or ss fixed ? this episode reveals the ultimately amoral nature of police too.

Bart, you actually said something I can agree with there. (If I'm gonna bash you when you're wrong, it's only fair I get your back when you're right.) The judicial branch--especially at the federal level--is far more sensitive to the fashions of elite opinion (NYT/MSM/academia) than the political branches. That's why judges so often "grow in office"--a polite way of saying "conform to peer pressure and adopt liberal fashion."

Elite opinion wants Terri Schiavo dead, just as elite opinion wanted Elian Gonzalez sent back to Cuba ("they have universal literacy and free health care!"). I'm pleasantly surprised that a Clinton appointee (presumably already a liberal with all the "right" opinions) actually bucked the trend and dissented.

Now observe W, who was obviously uncomfortable intervening in this case, trimming his sails to catch the emerging public consensus. When you're so hard-over, a change in the wind can be disastrous.