The bloviating of all the congressmen you care to cite does not change this. The Terri bill did NOT change existing law on temporary injunctive relief. These cowardly congressmen are blaming the judiciary for their own flawed bill. Had they REALLY wanted to mandate temporary injunctive relief, they would have left that language in the bill. Instead, they get credit for "doing something" by passing a bill, and avoid responsibility for its failure by blaming the judiciary for following the law. They can talk about "intent" all they want, but the language of the bill did not require a temporary injunction. The judge ruled based upon the language of the bill and existing law on temporary injunctions.
You really don't get it, do you?
Courts are supposed to rule within the confines of the language in the law, unless it conflicts with the desires of the perpetually discontented. In that case, the courts are supposed to consult hypothetical statements of intent, penumbras, emanations of those penumbras, goat entrails, Aunt Bessie's Ouija Board, and dimpled/hanging/swinging chards until they come to the answer the perpetually discontended demand.
Common sense did. A Mandate would have been extraneous to the bill. As I said, what you are embracing is Carnes and Hall embracing Senator Levin's threat to block the Senate bill, while ignoring all statments made to the contrary, and Common Snese, and plain reading.
A plain reading of the statue COMPELS a De Novo hearing....Logically followiing from that, the Object of said hearing needs to be alive.
And the Wells analogy is the apt one.
Because it proves that the Majority is not always correct, by virtue of their majority.