Exactly. And the Schindlers' attorney proceeded to lay out, to Judge Whitmore, all of the procedural issues he had with Judge Greer.
No facts. What was Whitmore supposed to do? He can't act on information not presented to him, nor is it his job to drag the facts out of an attorney.
Terri Schiavo's case raises the profoundly important questions of whether judges are effectively above the law, or whether We the People ultimately decide, not only what the laws are, but also how the laws apply to judges, no less than to all other public officials.
If America were a civilized country, no one would doubt that, when the Judiciary's misuse of power--whether through egregious error, usurpation, or tyranny--threatens an innocent and defenseless individual with death by prolonged torture, that it must not be obeyed, and must be stopped.
The Legislative and Executive Branches of government, and ultimately We the People, do not need to obtain the Judiciary's permission to remove, and need not heed the Judiciary's orders to cease and desist from removing, that threat.
There is no "right to kill" the guiltless and helpless, no matter who in purported "authority" decrees otherwise. Such a command itself--and surely the execution of any individual under color of such an order--constitutes a crime against humanity.
The traditions of Western civilization settled this matter long before the principle was enforced in the war-crimes trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo, which properly denied the purported defense of "obedience to orders from military or political superiors", and punished the perpetrators with imprisonment or even death by hanging.
His job was to grant a TRO in order to prevent irreparable harm until the actual case was presented. He knew that the law was passed mere hours before the motion for TRO was filed, and he knew that the actual complaint hadn't been filed yet, and he knew that if he didn't grant the TRO, she'd die.
Which she did.