If I'm not mistaken the law that Congress passes explicitly states that previous state court finding of fact should be disregarded. Am I wrong?
No, I took a peek at the ruling and it does say that. However since the questions of due process were raised because of Greer's ruling, Judge W. had to consider their merits. I urge everyone to read the ruling. I could not read it all cause my computer was waaaaaay slow with PDF. I have a strong feeling that this ruling will be overturned on appeal. Of special interest, I thought was the Judge cited Reno vs. Elian Gonzales as one of the cases dealing with temporary injunctions. Ironic isn't it. The courts have become so clever in denying life and liberty to the most innocent while granting it to the most heinious of crminals.
Not exactly.
Congress required a de novo (new) review of federal and consitutional questions -- which are essentially the questions of whether or not Terri had due process.
Congress didn't requrie (because it can't) a new trial on the facts of the underlying case, and the appointment of a guardian. That is a state matter, and it any such law that tried to intrude is unconsititutional.
If a violation of due process is/was found, a new trial could be ordered -- which would be held by judge Greer in state court.
"If I'm not mistaken the law that Congress passes explicitly states that previous state court finding of fact should be disregarded"
That is what I thought it said when I read the law also. Once again, a judge is thumbing his nose at the Executive and Legislative branches. This is not balance, this is abuse.