Finally!
One of the major problems I (and many here) had with the recent rulings on the Schiavo case is that the courts did not touch on whether "Terri's Law" was constitutional because such a ruling was not necessary to decide the issue.
Then yesterday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Schindlers an emergency appeal, and I couldn't understand why.
Fifteen hours later, the Court rejects the appeal, with a concurring opinion by Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr. that rebukes Bush and Congress for passing Terri's Law:
In resolving the Schiavo controversy it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution.
He also specifically addressed the issue of "activist judges":
A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of "activist judges." Generally, the definition of an "activist Judge" is one who decides the outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution.
He concludes by stating that Terri's Law is unconstitutional, followed by 13 pages of legal analysis (which, I admit, I haven't read yet).
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdf
So, it appears to me that the 11th Circuit only agreed to accept the appeal yesterday so that it could reject it today with an opinion speaking to the unconstitutionality of Terri's Law. No other explanation makes sense.
And I, for one, and am verg glad.