Replies

Well right now I bet the judge has asked for more case law about the rule of injunctions where there is at once no substantial liklihood of prevailing on the merits but also ensuing mootness, and whether his denial of the injunction would be reversible error. He wants to keep the tube out, but does not want to be bitched slapped 12 hours later by the 11th circuit based on something that would embarrass him for not catching. That is my speculation. I think it is good speculation myself. I like it. :)

Oh yes, I am tense. That is correct.

I've seen judges grant or deny many TRO's in an hour or two, under much less emergent circumstances. I don't care which way he rules, I think the judge taking his time under these circumstances is emerging as a huge issue. The fair thing to do was to have the lawyers stay at the courthouse this morning and get it done asap, knowing that either side will need to appeal his decision on an emergency basis.

IMHO the judge doesn't want to reinsert the tube because that requires him to find a likelihood of success, and he doesn't want to acknowledge that initially and then "reverse" himself a week from now. that would give teh Schiavos a big victory now and more of a sense of justification on appeal. But I hope I'm wrong and he reinserts the tube until a fuller hearing can be held.

Uh, do you have my house bugged??? My beloved said something along those lines. Without the ..ahem.. slapping part.

Don't misunderstand me: He probably would say worse if it were not me he was talking to, and our babies (two VERY smart dogs) weren't around.

Come to think of it, I think he was more worried about the babies picking up his bad language than offending me!

Yes, this judge is in a pickle. Oh, my. Do you realize just how many pithy sayings revolve around food??

Ever since I've heard about this case I've not taken food for granted.

No pun intended.

"Well right now I bet the judge has asked for more case law about the rule of injunctions where there is at once no substantial liklihood of prevailing on the merits but also ensuing mootness, and whether his denial of the injunction would be reversible error. He wants to keep the tube out, but does not want to be bitched slapped 12 hours later by the 11th circuit based on something that would embarrass him for not catching. That is my speculation. I think it is good speculation myself. I like it. :)"

_______________

I think "substantial likelihood" is involved here but the likelihood has been made considerably more "substantial" by the enacted legislation. Anyway, it's to be a de novo consideration, and no judge is so brilliant as to be able to even hint, as this one reportedly has, that he's had enough time to conclude that there's not a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Meanwhile, the only sane, humane, and logical thing for him to do is stop the dehydration and resume the nutrition. Meanwhile, from another angle, the Schiavo appeal to the 11th Cir. from the state court's denial of an injuction is pending, and was supplementally briefed yesterday. So maybe what we want will come from them while the dist. ct. judge fiddles.