The impression I get is that because they are challenging the Constitutionality of the law, it must then be discovered if Terri's rights are being violated, which means that they must allow discovery in order to determine if it was really Terri's wish to be killed. They are saying that they can't just base it on the presumption that the previous court ruling was accurate. They are furthur saying that it will require a jury to make that determination. If a jury gets to make this determination, Terri has a shot, and a strong one. That's how I read it anyway.
He did exactly that. Remember this article? And here's a excerpt -
Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird, after a brief hearing, ruled that Michael Schiavo's lawsuit against Bush can proceed. He ordered an attorney for the governor to submit a brief by Monday defending the constitutionality of the law that allowed Bush to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted Oct. 21.
Baird said Terri Schiavo's right not to be kept alive artificially was successfully defended by her husband in state courts, and any delays in removing the feeding tube so she can die are violating her constitutional right to privacy.
"The deprivation of this right is immediate, ongoing and presumptively unconstitutional," Baird said from the bench.
He ordered Bush to submit a brief defending its constitutionality and then basically stated it was unconstitutional! No wonder they are seeking his removal. I remember the incredulous reactions here on FR after reading his statements.