The truth in this case is that the Schindler's attorneys, from day one, have bungled this case. Most recently, they were handed a gift from the legislature, a second chance in front of a federal judge, and dropped the ball. They made the wrong arguments, as discussed in this article and as mentioned by others who have been watching this case.
From what I can tell, Judge Greer did his own amount of bungling.
I think the initial fatal mistake in this case was the failure to object strenuously to the ex parte communication with Judge Greer that led to the appointment of Felos as co-counsel. In that communique, counsel for Schiavo claimed that the Schindlers were aware of the decision to bring in "right-to-die" counsel on issues of prolonging her life. While Mr. Schindler has said that he was unaware of any such decisions, Schindler counsel did not aggressively protest the appointment.
But, in looking this over, there have been many injustices and instances of ineffective counsel for the Schindlers. (And, having had experience with judicial corruption in a county court, I am not ruling out cronyism and judicial impropriety in this matter.) But the failure to demand the potential relief provided by Congressional action was a staggering lack of advocacy. Personally, I was appalled when I heard the nature of the complaint before a federal court.
Judicial scope has more ability and is less limited than that you have suggested, in and out of chamber.
If the Clinton-appointed federal judge were interested in protecting life, he would have dimissed the complaint without prejudice and told schindler's attorneys to re-file to re-assert the facts they presented as a 14th amendment right-to-life claim as intended by the act, if they had such a claim. Hinding behind draconian application of procedural rules doesn't justify starving a human being to death.
From a recent movie, in which a bureacrat is spouting procedure:
"Where are the kids?"
"What?"
"You know, the kids... Cowards often hide behind rules and children."
Is this a logical conclusion to what you said?
'In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. ….
Didn't specifically state a requirement for a De Novo Review vs. De Novo Trial. And, Judge Whittman used his discretion (against the intent of congress) to hold a De Novo Review?
Is this more-or less correct?