Filing at SCOTUS was a waste of time.
On the plus side, I do think Greer's order attempting to restrain the DCF was out of bounds. I don't hold out much hope that DCF would accomplish anything, even in the absence of such an order, but there is that.
Gibbs needs to get his act together, Evidently he has done so. There are two legs of this three legged stool that are grounds for overturning Greer. His "expert" testimony on PVS is garbage and there is now conflcting testimony from a disinterested neurologist who consults for DCF.
And second, Greer erred bigtime when he disregarded testimony as to Terri Schiavos state of mind vis a vis Karen Ann Quinlan. He disregarded that testimony because he stated, in a particularly snide manner btw, that Karen Ann Quinlan had died in 1976. Her parents disconnected her life support in 1985.
If she was a criminal, that alone would be enough for a new trial.
Based on the standards for impeachment generally deployed on these threads, it's all too easy to paint Cheshire as "conflicted". If affiliation with various right-to-die and death-with-dignity organizations is enough to impeach the court-appointed doctors who support Michael Schiavo, then Cheshire's affiliations are quite enough to attack his credibility when he opposes him.
FWIW, I think all those sorts of arguments are pure garbage, regardless of whether we're talking about doctors who are pro or con. Cheshire is clearly a qualified expert, as are the other doctors who have rendered their opinions on the case. It should, I expect, present a bit of difficulty for those who argue against the credibility of court-appointed doctors, and yet prefer to maintain some sort of logical consistency.
And second, Greer erred bigtime when he disregarded testimony as to Terri Schiavos state of mind vis a vis Karen Ann Quinlan.
And here they go, walking that argument into the same court - Whittemore's - that's turned them down once already. I don't root for failure here, but I'll not be surprised if it does not go well, again.