[Jeff Head]

You forgot to include my mention of the "Check that" and the comment by the dissenting Judge. I do not believe he is operating outside the law. He understands that there is a federal law on the books calling for a new hearing on the evidence instead of a rehash of the eviodence presented (allowed) in Greer's court. It would not be activist to act upon that law would it?

My wording may not have been perfect, but my intent was clear, and I added a section in the original comments that makes that clear which you chose not to quote. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to state the issue again.

[Parzival]

You forgot to include my mention of the "Check that" and the comment by the dissenting Judge. I do not believe he is operating outside the law

Then I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that he disregarded "bad" law and used his own opinions instead and that "check" referred to that.

It would not be activist to act upon that law would it?

Certainly not, but I think that under federal law criteria for injunction are deliberately set high. Reasonable likelyhood of ultimate success is a sufficient reason, "it would do no harm" (from dissenting opinion) is not. Overall I think the court decided fairly and rightly based on the law.

And remember it's not "liberal" vs. "conservative" judges here. Greer is a Republican Southern Baptist and one of the majority hudges is a GHWB appointee. The dissenting judge is a BC appointee.