The rule of law; not the rule of judges

Here's Ann Coulter saying in a much better way what I tried to say here; namely, that it's time for a government leader to act to protect Schiavo's civil rights:

As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of 'federalism' that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and Presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too. It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice born of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer and Ten Commandments displays. Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.