Replies

Yes, it was - you didn't read Whittemore's ruling. It's here - start at page 4 and continue on to the end. He ran through a procedural review as a part of determining whether they had a substantial likelihood of prevailing, and hence whether an injunction should be granted.

Kindly look at my link in post 2597 which is to the federal court in question itself and tell me how different it is from your link. In any case I have read it and a review is not a de novo review. They were asking for time so that it could be reviewed. Why do you think the restraining order would be temporary? What? If they actually prove that her rights were violated they get a slightly longer restraining order?

Either way, you lose. Whittemore examined the procedural issues to see if she was deprived of her constitutional rights, as mandated by Congress - he determined that she had not been deprived of her constitutional rights.

Okay, you say, let's pretend that's not the de novo review Congress wanted - they wanted a whole new hearing of all the issues. One wonders why they limited it to examining whether federal rights violations occurred, but there you go - we wave our wand and probate is now magically a federal matter. Little problem now - we need an injunction, or she'll be dead long before our full-blown hearing ever gets off the ground. Trouble is, they can't meet the standard required to get that injunction. Congress could have mandated an injunction, but they didn't, so the courts had no choice but to treat it like any other request for relief, and there it fell apart.

Write your congressman - ask him why they didn't mandate statutory relief, when then knew or should have know that the failure to do so was a death sentence. Be sure to share any response you get from him with the class.