Rule of Law

i am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be. But I know a tab bit mroe than the average Joe about the law. I am pretty sure that typically a Federal Court rarely goes back on a decision to not take a case, unless there is new information/evidence to warrant such a "new look."

Since Congress has already set a dangerous precedent by making a law just for Terri to get a de-novo hearing, why not have the judiciary follow suit with its own version of precedent.

To my knowledge there is NO new information scientific, or otherwise on Terri's condition. I mean she hasn't written a note saying she want's to be kept a live right? Nor has a new CAT scan proven that her brain has improved (as much as Joe Scarborough would like to believe it has)

In requesting a new hearing, the Schindlers argued that a federal judge in Tampa should have considered the entire state court record and not whether previous Florida court rulings met legal standards under state law. It also stated that the Atlanta federal appellate court didn't consider whether there was enough "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to die in her current condition.

Now my lady (who is a lawyer in training) says most of the time lawyers will just keep throwing stuff at judges until something "sticks." Perhaps this lawyer has finally gotten something to stick. However, the clearness and convincingness of the evidence is exactly what was decided in the Florida Court's ruling.

What is being brought to the air waves by people like Sean Hannity, is an attempt to take the evidence and make it less clear and convincing, particularly to people who are not knowledgeable to all the facts in the case.

UPDATE: This all seems particularly fishy since one of the judges on the 11th circuit court (William Pryor) is a possible nominee for the Bush's Supreme Court (should he have that chance).