Since Terri's law only created jurisdiction to review alleged deprivation of Federal constitutional rights, for a judge to hear and decide other issues would be judicial activism.
It was not the charge of the Federal Court to decide whether Terri could be rehabilitated. It was their charge to determine whether the State of Florida, in deciding that she was PVS, violated her Federal constitutional rights. It is a process issue, whether you like that or not.
It was not a process issue. A New set of eyes required. The Schindlers attorney met all FOUR of the prongs required for Injuctive relief, Whittmore upped the ante, to reach the conlcuion he wanted, rahter than the one the evidence dictated.
That is activism.
The affadavits only need to show a possibilty of success IN a new hearing.
you are claiming that the attorney should have argued a hearing that wasnt happening.
He was required to demonstrate a possibility of success, and the medical testimony does that.