Political suicide (I believe that's what you meant; slip of the tongue)? Well, sixty seconds of research provides this list of people who committed political suicide:

Baldwin; Berkley; Bishop (NY); Brown-Waite, Ginny; Butterfield; Capuano; Cardin; Carnahan; Carson; Castle; Clay; Cleaver; Clyburn; Conyers; Davis (FL); Dent; Dicks; Doyle; Evans; Frank (MA); Gutierrez; Hastings (FL); Holt; Hoyer; Israel; Kaptur; Kennedy (RI); Larson (CT); Levin; Lewis (GA); Matsui; McDermott; McKinney; Miller (NC); Moran (VA); Murtha; Nadler; Olver; Pallone; Pascrell; Payne; Price (NC); Reichert; Rothman; Schiff; Schwartz (PA); Scott (VA); Shays; Spratt; Strickland; Thompson (MS); Van Hollen; Visclosky; Wasserman Schultz; Watt; Weiner; Wexler; Wu

And that's just members of the House who voted on the bill; it doesn't count those who were not present for the vote, but expressed an opinion on the record, such as Minority Leader Pelosi (a total of 174 did not vote; I'm much too lazy to track down what each of them might have expressed regarding the matter). This doesn't count members of the Senate, nor politicians in Florida, nor politicians in any other state (the case has caused other states to review their laws and update them, so state politicians from other states have made comments on the matter).

The speed average thing was an attempt to point out areas where you might disagree with the powers that be (I'll admit that I was having problems thinking up an area where that might be likely -- I'm familiar with how speed limits are (usually) set, and, by those standards, there are still some places where that rule isn't well followed; one of my personal pet peeves is stop signs where yield signs should be (the yield sign is woefully underused), but I digress). Just because someone in government has an appointed power and has "no less information" than anyone else, does not mean that they will be correct in their decision. That was the point I was working at getting at.

As I pointed out already, most of the decisions in this case rested with the "findings of fact" of a single judge, based on the testimony of a single witness. Moreover, findings of fact are a matter of trial courts, and appeals courts are dependent on them (an appeals court cannot produce a new finding of fact). This runs contrary to your stated belief that several courts and judges and whatever had reviewed the matter. They were not allowed complete review of the matter. This was what the U.S. Congress was trying to resolve -- it was attempting to get the case reviewed in U.S. District Court complete with new findings of fact. However, that court rejected the will of Congress and refused to get involved in the matter.

Also, while Terri has been subjected to a CT scan, she has not had an MRI or a PET scan which would provide a much more complete neurological exam. Her Permanent vegetative state diagnosis is not just something questioned by some protesters, but by a couple of the doctors who have actually been treating her.

Moreover, she is being deprived of life much more easily than any convicted murderer would be. A murderer must be proved guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, the Schiavo case went through civil court, not criminal court, where a less strict standard is applied. The decision was handed down by a single judge, rather than the jury required in capital punishment cases. The fifth and fourteenth amendments protects against the taking of life without due process of law, something that was not met in this case. While some say that such only applies to to criminal matters, they are fooling themselves if they believe that the state has not sentenced her to die in this case; moreover, it's only through an "accident of history" that such a matter has even arisen (that a life could be taken through a civil proceeding). (And if that's not enough to compel the need for a jury trial out of you, how about the Seventh Amendment? I think the value in this case is much greater than $20, even adjusted for inflation.)

As I mentioned previously, Michael Schiavo is living adulterously with another woman, with whom he has a couple of children. This should be enough to call his interest in the matter into question. More than that, though, it wasn't until seven years after Terri came into her current state that he suddenly "remembered" that she wanted to die rather than live through it. His evidence for this is both flimsy and disputed.

As I've also said previously, it is important to err on the side of life. Should it later be proved that she was in a PVS, and that she wanted to die if such was ever the case, such could be remedied. However, if the opposite were proved, and she was already dead, there is no remedy available. The presumption must be on life, not death.

This is a new area of law and the courts and legislatures are struggling to keep up. The idea of keeping someone alive artificially is not that old, and only started to mainstream around the 1980's. It is natural that missteps will occur, and it is the duty of the people of a free Republic to monitor their government and correct it.

The protestors siding with the parents are much better informed than you give them credit for. Incidentally, polls show populace at large siding about 60-25 (lots of undecideds/people who haven't heard of the case) with her husband against her parents. The political price you try to paint for siding with the husband just isn't there. Of course, most people know extremely little about the case. The more they know, though, the more likely they are to side with the parents. However, my main point is that it is rather ludicrous for you to denigrate the protestors for their supposed lack of knowledge when you a) know less about the case than they do and b) are unfamiliar with the legal system at work here.