I have to disagree. Had the original court been corrupted, its rulings would have been overturned by one of the many appeals. The fact that the appeals were denied, validates the courts initial ruling in the eyes of the law. It is impossible for me to believe that every court presented with this case was part of a vast conspiracy. Yes, a law was passed by Congress allowing the court to review the case. The courts, including the Supreme Court, determined that review was not necessary, several times. This case presented quite a conundrum. The family argued that Terri's rights were being violated. However, any law passed preventing the tube removal would have violated Terri's rights as it removed her ability to decide, or in this case her legal guardian, whose surrogate decision capacity had already been affirmed by the court. As far as the courts exceeding authority by reading meaning into law, I also disagree. It is the court's job to interpret law. That's what they do and it is their authority. As for legislating from the bench I have found this is to be the cry of whichever side disagrees with the ruling.