Wrong. I read the rulings by Whittemore and the three judge panel. The matter at question pertained to the request for preliminary injunctive relief. It is clear that Congress did not intend to change the law pertaining to preliminary injunctions, so existing law was applied. Whittemore ruled that the Schindlers did not demonstrate the substantial likelihood of success on the merits required to obtain a temporary restraining order. The three judge panel does not revisit this point, but only reviews the original judge's ruling only for abuse of discretion.
Like it or not, this was a conservative judicial ruling.
No. It wasnt, and the dissent nailed them on it. He articicially raised the barrie on the first Prong of the FOur Prong test for Injuctive relief.
The simple fact is one needed to only show some ability ot succeed. Whittemore then argued that the medical briefs were not properly argued vis-a-vis a Constitutional Claim.
He hid behind an artificial construct, generally speaking the nature of the Harm the relief seeks to prevent wieghs in the decision.
Congress MANDATED the hearing. Congress MAndated the hearing be De Novo. IT was fairly implied by the law that the object of said law be kpet alive.
7 congressmen filed a brief stating exactly the intent of the law. It is linked in one of my posts to atlaw.