Replies

So, if I understand your argument - the fact that one judge wrote a dissent means that the trial judge, the majority of the appellate panel, and every reviewing court were engaged in judical activism?

Ok. Lets start with the Florida Court system...I am sure you remember a little thing Called Election 2000 right??????

In the last case that made it to SCOTUS, who was right, the SCOFLA majority, or Chief Justice Wells.

And that is my point.

Wilson looks at the case, and sees all four prongs met.

Whittemore, (who btw, used to serve with Greer...) looked at the showing,(Required) and then complained that it wasnt argued. (not required).

And in concert with the law passed by congress, as Judge Wilson points out, there can be no hearing as mandated BY THE LAW if the TRO is not granted. Or is Judge Wilson just wrong about what type of hearing is being appealed?

The Majority insists in its opinion, that not only did Congress NOT SPECIFICALLY mandate a De Novo hearing, but that Whittemore acually gave one.

Which would have been a shcok to the attorneys applying for a TRO to keep Terri alive so the hearing could be held.

So, if I understand your argument - the fact that one judge wrote a dissent means that the majority of the appellate panel, were engaged in judical activism?

Well since its a 2-1 decision yes.

After all, how would you view it, if in interpreting the law as passed by Congress, in an unprecednted manner, they chose to rely on Senator Levin, for advice on intent?

Odd, how people will run to embrace one of the most notorious $cumb@g$ in the Senate, when the mood suits them.