McGrath of Harlow said, in part:

You've got a legal system in the States where cases seem to go round in circles, and still end up sometimes with grotesquely wrong results. (So have lots ofther countries.)That's a problem you need to sort out all right. But cutting the Gordian knot by preempting thate legal system by ensuring that the person involved dies first is no way to solve that prblem.

M of H, I think you're right--and you're wrong.

Your first two sentences above are perfectly well founded.

But the illegitimate cutting of the Gordian knot here (the "preempting") is being done on the other side. Congress's recent action is not only politically motivated but very bad legally. US Constitutional law calls for other states as well as the federal government to give full faith and credit to the actions of state courts (Florida in this case). The Supreme Court can under some circumstances have a last say after the state courts have spoken, but has declined to deal with the issues involved, in effect saying that the NINETEEEN Florida judges over FIFTEEN years have provided appropriate due process in the case.

In my opinion the new legislation is not only ill-advised but unconstitutional. I think those who carried it through even knew this, but indulged in gamesmanship, for two purposes: One, hoping to get a put-back-the-tube order pending a hearing, even though the result of the hearing is likely to be a declaration for the husband and/or one of unconstitutionality of the new law; and two, for political polarization purposes. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! Wrong in fact, wrong constitutionally, and wrong in motivation.

Dave Oesterreich