From what I read in the decision, Whittemore carefully considered each argument of rights violations and easily shot them down according to law. Maybe the lawyers could have done a better job, but that's not Whittemore's responsibility.
Depriving someone of food and water naturally is a violation of the rights held forth during the founding of this nation. Greer and his fellows can deprive someone of those substances by artificial means, but the order preventing their administration naturally went far outside the scope of what a court may order. You see, natural food and water is not a 'treatment option' that can be withheld.
So if Whittemore failed to see that in his undertakings, then he is a greater fool than Greer.