Justices focused on whether Bush and the Legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine by pushing through a measure dubbed ``Terri's Law'' that allowed the governor to countermand years of rulings.

Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente said Terri's Law lacked the ``standards and procedures'' that limit the governor's options when he intervenes in death penalty cases.

Justice Peggy A. Quince agreed: ``The governor isn't really required to do anything. The state could stay indefinitely'' a court order allowing the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, Quince said.

Also, Pariente repeatedly expressed concern that the law was tailored to affect only the Schiavo case, a point Justice Charles T. Wells also pressed.

``Are you not asking us to really hold that this act doesn't pertain just to Terri Schiavo?'' Wells asked Bush attorney Ken Connor. ``We would have to ignore reality to do that, would we not?''

Michael Schiavo's attorney, who has twice won permission for his client to remove his wife's feeding tube, also faced rapid-fire questioning.

Wells questioned George Felos' contention that Bush and the Legislature overstepped their bounds by acting to overturn a final court order issued after years of litigation and appellate review.

``We are not really, though, talking about a judgment which was final,'' Wells said. ``It's not final as long as Ms. Schiavo is still alive.''

Justice R. Fred Lewis reminded Felos that the Legislature has the right to ``protect the well-being'' of disabled children.

Pariente said the Legislature can ``always change the law'' and appeared to empathize with its concerns over the Schiavo case.

``This type of situation is getting tragic for everyone.''

Tuesday's long-anticipated oral arguments drew more than 100 spectators and reporters from around the nation. More than a dozen lawyers, many representing groups that were allowed to file friend-of-the-court briefs, lined the well in front of the long, curved bench of robed justices.

Outside the courthouse, a handful of demonstrators sought to focus attention on their overall right-to-life agenda.

``We're arguing that this particular case has broader implications for the disabled community as a whole,'' said Carrie Sandahl, a member of the Society for Disability Studies, a group that examines disability from a cultural and social perspective.

``We are not against advance directives, but in this case we don't see clear evidence, and that almost always leads to the assumption that people are better off dead than disabled.''

Battle Arrives In High Court

In the courtroom, the two sides of Terri Schiavo's family sat in the front row, husband Michael Schiavo on one side of the aisle, parents Bob and Mary Schindler on the other.

The Schindlers have been fighting for more than six years to block Schiavo from ending their daughter's life.

Terri Schiavo, 40, has been in what her husband's doctors say is a persistent vegetative state since her heart failed in 1990. The Schindlers contend their daughter is not in a vegetative state and say she reacts to them and could improve if given therapy.

After a January 2000 nonjury trial, Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer ruled that testimony from Schiavo and his relatives showed Terri Schiavo made statements prior to her illness indicating she would not want to be kept alive in her current state.

That ruling has repeatedly been upheld during a series of appeals that went as high as the U.S. Supreme Court.

In October, six days after Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed on Greer's order, the Legislature passed the hastily crafted Terri's Law and Bush stepped in to order the tube reinserted. The governor's action came after lawmakers were inundated with e-mail and telephone calls from people, many of them from other states, who characterized themselves as pro-life.

Schiavo immediately attacked the constitutionality of Terri's Law on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers doctrine, that it was crafted to affect only his wife's case, and that it violated his wife's right to refuse medical treatment.

In May, Pinellas Circuit Judge Douglas Baird agreed and ruled Terri's Law to be unconstitutional. That set the stage for Tuesday's face-off after the Supreme Court ruled the case to be one of great public importance.

The judges gave no sign Tuesday when they might rule.

State's Role Questioned

After the about 45-minute court session, the Schindlers' lead attorney said the justices were clearly concerned about whether the governor and Legislature usurped power from the judiciary.

``I would characterize this as a hot bench,'' Schindler attorney Pat Anderson said.

The panel did not seem overly concerned with Terri Schiavo's privacy right to decline medical treatment, Anderson said.

Felos, who has hammered the privacy issue as central to the case, said the court needs to act to protect the right to decline medical treatment.

``The citizens of the state of Florida need to know Big Brother will not be peering over their shoulder when they make these personal decisions,'' he said.

Michael Schiavo criticized Bush for not attending Tuesday's hearing. ``If this is so important to the governor, where is he?'' Schiavo said.

He said Bush asked for and received privacy when his own daughter was in trouble. ``Why aren't you giving me my privacy, and Terri's?'' Schiavo said.

Bob Schindler said he doesn't understand court proceedings, just the feelings of a loving family.

``Terri is responsive ... she has emotions,'' he said. ``It breaks our hearts to see our daughter when she is loving and loved by her family and we can't do anything for her.''

Schindler said his daughter would never have said she would not want to be kept alive, as her husband testified at the 2000 trial.

``Anyone who knows Terri well, knows Terri would never, ever make that statement. She loved life,'' he said.

Reporter Michon Ashmore contributed to this report. Reporter David Sommer can be reached at (727) 799-7413.