[AndyJackson]

Schindler's lawyer, David Gibbs, may have fatally erred by dragging the previous court case into federal court as the basis for the stay...Whittmore had to respond to what was presented to him, and Gibbs presented nothing new.

Gibbs did not have to present anything new. The law required that Whittmore try the case de novo. It does not mean new factual allegations. It means a new hearing to hear all of the evidence. The previous court case was relevant, because, if the allegations are true, then it is part of the pattern of violations of Terri's civil rights.

The error that Whittmore made, and that his sympathisers are repeating is a circular argument - presuming that since Gibbs argued nothing new, the case had already been decided. But, if the law requires that the case be retried, then Whittmore cannot base his decision on the findings of fact of the previous court hearing.

The error is a transparent logical error (question begging) and I am surprisde that any experience jurist would commit it or fall for it.

[Future Useless Eater]

>>The error that Whittmore made, and that his sympathisers are repeating is a circular argument - presuming that since Gibbs argued nothing new, the case had already been decided. But, if the law requires that the case be retried, then Whittmore cannot base his decision on the findings of fact of the previous court hearing.

Thank you! What Whittmore wrote made little sense. This makes MUCH more sense.

[Future Useless Eater]

great handle you've got too. I wish the president or governor would treat these courts the same way Andrew Jackson did!

[Graymatter]

... a transparent logical error...and I am surprised that any experience jurist would commit it or fall for it.

Maybe he was...no, not gonna say it! :)