[general_re]

Why no statutory relief from Congress then? They knew that if she didn't get the TRO, which was a distinct likelihood given the standards for injunctive relief, that she'd die. Which, as you said, she did.

[CobaltBlue]

According to the Senators and members of Congress who have discussed the matter, it never crossed their mind that the judge would not grant the TRO, given the plain language of the statute which provided for de novo review.

The judge did NOT follow the statute.

I've been a lawyer for almost 20 years, and I had become inured to the callousness of judges, but this case has really pissed me off.

Anything to get out to the golf course and a cocktail.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Why no statutory relief from Congress then? They knew that if she didn't get the TRO, which was a distinct likelihood given the standards for injunctive relief, that she'd die.

Republicans wanted to do that. It was in the House Bill and early versions of the Senate Bill. But Democrats demanded that such explicit directives be removed before agreeing to the bill. In other words the Dims wanted to appear to be pro-life while giving the courts obvious routes to uphold the original decision. And this was not the only hole the Dims demanded. I've been posting on this since the congressional debates. The original House Bill was the only real solution. But, no, people got fooled into thinking the Senate bill would be just as good and Republicans were just holding up the process for political purposes. People will never learn to just not listen to the critics of Republicans. They are all always liars.