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.
The Schindlers filed a motion for a TRO. The law does not require a mere possibility of success, as you erroneously claim. It explicitly requires a "substantial likelihood" of success on the merits. That is the law, and that is the standard applied by Whittemore and the 11th. No one "upped the ante."
Terri's law allowed a de novo review to determine whether there was a deprivation of Terri's Federal constitutional rights. It did not provide for a Federal court to de novo relitigate all issues in the state court cases, regardless of their relationship to Federal constitutional rights.