Congress subpoenas the Schiavos in a last ditch attempt not to have the feeding tube removed and Judge Greer decides they have no right. Huh? Since when does a Florida judge get to determine whether a subpoena issued by the federal legislature is valid?
I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps, there is a procedural reason the judge can do this. If so, then fine. But, if there isn't, Congress should have Greer arrested for contempt, throw him into federal prison and then Florida's governor should appoint a new judged for the case.
I hope some investigative journalist (i.e. blogger) decides to get to the bottom of what smells so bad in this case. Just the appearance of impropriety and appearance of a cover-up leads a reasonable person to wonder what Judge Green has gained from this financially. Has he been paid-off by some right-to-kill group? Is there a backroom deal that will flow proceeds from whatever Terry's husband receives to him? Or, is it just a judge trying not to get his judicial decision making called into question on what now appears to be a significant conflict of interest between the protection of Terry's rights and the intentions of Terry's guardian (her adulterous husband)?
Conflict of interest on Terry's husband's part? You think not? Well let's see. Terry's husband had an adulterous affair with another woman (i.e. sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife). Need evidence? No better circumstantial evidence than the children that have come from that affair. Does the affair, creation of children with his mistress, and his constant pushing not to provide Terry with rehabilitation or another's physican's view demonstrate that perhaps Terry's husband's thoughts are focused more on his rights to move on than on her rights to live? Just the mere presence of him having children with another woman lead a reasonable person to call into question Terry's husband's judgement over Terry's care.
Shouldn't the courts remove him as guardian given this conflict or at least provide allow some third party come in and ensure Terry's rights are protected? Perhaps, allow the third party to sue for divorce from Terry's husband. It seems logical to me that Terry is not getting the legal protection she needs. It concerns me greatly that a judge cannot/will not look at this logically and arrive at what I think is a reasonable conclusion. Which brings me back to my central issue with this case: it stinks of corruption.
Need to follow the money, and I'll bet you'll get some answers.