Again, to try and help clarify, this order stems from the House's prior attempt to intervene in the state action brought by Terri's parents. They wanted to intervene to get an injunction stopping the removal of the feeding tube (or now the reinsertion of the tube) in order for there to be compliance with the Congressional subpoenas. The trial court denied this petition. Yesterday (the 21st), the House Attys then filed a notice of appeal with the FL Appellate Ct. seeking to reverse the trial. In conjunction with the filing of the appeal, they also filed a petition with the FL Supreme Ct. seeking an emergency order to reinsert the feeding tube while the appeal at the appellate court is being heard. To attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the FL Supreme Ct., they cited to the FL Const. which contains a section known as "all writs" The order that started this thread is simply an order that denies jurisdiction based solely upon the "all writs" language. (If there are any FL attys out there you can probably clarify this better than I can). Simply put, this order means that the FL Supreme Ct. won't take action on the House's appeal before the appellate court does.
Well, now I'm sure I totally muddied the waters of clarity on this, but I'm trying to type as fast and briefly as I can.
Good analysis, but I have a question: what basis would Florida courts have to hear an appeal from Congress on a state court's refusal to acquiesce to a congressional subpoena? I mean I hate to be skunk at a garden party but folks it seems to me that Congress ain't got no business telling state courts what to do.