That was the object of my questions in post 142.
I can only make sense of this by assuming these judges were infected by hubris once they were appointed to the bench.
Whatever their earlier judicial philosophies, these guys soon feel the rush of near-unlimited power that a judicial appointment has conferred in the U.S. since mid-twentieth century.
They resent the legislative branch's intervention --however legitimate and constitutional that may be.
They've warmed up to the idea, encouraged by the elite media, that the legislative branch is just rabble; but that they, the judiciary, are God.
And by God, just out of jealousy and spite they won't abide the intentions of Congress.
Congress ordered a review of Terri's case, de novo. Doesn't that mean a gathering of facts from scratch, instead of accepting the corrupt Judge Greer's determination of fact?
Aren't these tyrants thumbing their noses at Congress and refusing to do a true de novo review?
No. The Schindlers' attorney refused to conduct one, and the case was not presented de novo. Instead, they wanted to question whether Greer was procedurally correct in the old case--in other words, the stuff they'd already litigated and lost. Judges cannot work with anything except what the plaintiffs bring to them.
How in the hell does someone actually make it through law school without understanding what de novo means?