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.
The fact remains that the only thing Whittemore - and hence the 11th - was empowered to do is examine Federal constitutional violations. In that context, it is a very weak position for Gibbs to simply argue that Terri is not PVS or that there are differing medical opinions. It is necessary to establish that these alleged facts form the basis for a violation of Federal constitutional rights.
If there was a Catch-22 in the law, i.e. a de novo hearing can only have meaning if a stay is entered - then this Catch-22 was created KNOWINGLY by Congress. They talked about it on the floor.