[ambrose]

I am totally against this bill, but this judge's refusal to rule is inexcusable. It seems that he may be waiting until the issue is "moot" and there is nothing for the appellate court to review.

[Torie]

Refusal to grant the injunction in these circumstances is reversible error. The refusal denies Terri a hearing on the merits. The substantial liklihood rule does not obtain here. It is ludicrous.

[AntiGuv]

I am totally against this bill, but this judge's refusal to rule is inexcusable. It seems that he may be waiting until the issue is "moot" and there is nothing for the appellate court to review.

I am totally against this bill primarily because I disagree on principle with situational "non-precedent" policy du jour (judicial or legislative). If they have a constitutional authority to intervene and a moral imperative to do so, then the bill should've been universal (applying to all comparable scenarios).

So, I think this bill should be struck down, but during the interim, I think it's inexcusable that the judge would not rule to instantly ensure Terri Schiavo's well-being for the duration of the appeals process. If it were up to me I would've ruled immediately.

Hopefully this will be a short delay and the injunction will be forthcoming; I think the parents' lawyer should file with the 11th Circuit ASAP.