"aren't they going against the grain by upholding Greer's rulings?"
No. They are doing the old "I'll scratch your back" routine...judges are loathe to overturn their fellow jurists rulings...and none of them that have to stand for election in the next two years are going to be "the one" who overturns any of Greers decisions. IMHO, They are placing their own political security over the life of one person and doing what's right.
Thatn's not going against the grain...that's cowardice.
That's ridiculous. Rulings and court cases are overturned every day.
and none of them that have to stand for election in the next two years are going to be "the one" who overturns any of Greers decisions. IMHO, They are placing their own political security over the life of one person and doing what's right.
The Federal judges never have to stand for election. They are appointed for life, and don't have to worry about political security, yet they are still upholding Greer's rulings.
In any case, by your logic, the ones who have to stand for election should be overturning Greer's rulings, because on the whole people don't seem to think Terri Schiavo should be starved to death, and they might vote against the judges who supported that.
So far your case doesn't hold water.