Probably the best thing to do would be to have a doctor declare that her swallowing is evidence that while she may have been(*) in a permanent vegetative state, she is no longer. Thus, it would be possible to overrule Judge Greer's order on a temporary on the basis not because it was wrongly given(*), but because facts had materially changed since that time.
(*) Trial courts always make correct decisions based on the evidence before them. Anything that would show otherwise is erroneous. Therefore, anything that would cause the trial-court's decisions to be incorrect must be consistent with the trial court's decision having been a correct interpretation of the evidence then available.
Not always.
There was a case in Texas, during GW's rule there, in which a death row inmate tried to introduce evidence that proved that he could not have committed the crime.
The courts ruled against him, because -- are you sitting down? -- because he did not introduce the evidence within the statutary timeframe allotted for the introduction of new evidence.
His lawyer argued that he should not be held to that timeframe, because the evidence was not obtained until after that timeframe had elapsed.
The courts -- right up to the SCOTUS said TS, the law gave him a period to introduce it, he didn't introduce it within that timeframe, so it doesn't matter if he's innocent, because the requirements of the law have been fulfilled.
So, an innocent man was executed.
There are some serious problems with the way "justice" is done in this country.
Heh, heh. And Bill Clinton is a champion of womens rights!