Your grammar is garbled, but I believe what you mean to say is correct: that the only thing an appeals court can do is tell a trial court judge to consider certain evidence. If a trial court judge states that he has considered evidence even though such evidence is squarely contrary to his opinion, the appeals process is meaningless.
Without new evidence, Jeb can't legally act as if Schiavo has a conflict of interest (as obvious as it may seem to everyone else) because the Court has ruled that he does not have one based on all existing evidence.
This isn't baseball, and this isn't some Matrix-style movie fantasyland where declaring that something is so makes it thus. There can be no doubt at all that the possibility exists of a conflict of interest regarding Michael's care of Terri. Jeb Bush's allegiance is not to men in black robes, but is to the Constitutions of Florida and the United States.
No one outside the courts can make findings of fact like the ones just discussed. If I'm wrong on that, give me a historical example where an executive or legislature's finding of fact has trumped the judiciary's. Unfortunately, I don't know of one.
There are numerous historical examples of a President overruling a court, and plenty of Presidents and governors enforcing or not enforcing laws in manners not explicitly authorized by courts. I don't know that any of these officials have ever openly declared that their actions were based upon disagreements over judicial findings of fact, but the basic principle is that the executive does something and is then either impeached or not.
Suppose Judge Greer were to examine someone who was gagged and tied to a stretcher, and he declared on the basis of that examination, that the person was dead and should be cremated immediately; the person's apparent struggling was no different from that of a chicken with its head cut off. Would Jeb Bush have the authority to intervene? After all, there would be nothing illegal about incinerating a corpse, and if Judge Greer were to declare the person dead having seen the evidence of her breathing, moaning, struggling, etc. then under the legal standards at play nobody would have the right to question his finding of fact.
If the executive isn't willing to check the judiciary when it makes findings of facts that are just plain wrong, then there is no effective check at all on rogue judges. Because of rules which were supposedly designed to prevent judge-shopping, it is possible for one person to have almost complete lifelong control over any person who comes under his authority. Truly scary.