Replies

My husband mentioned the same thing. He's in the "legal industry" (sorry, not a lawyer either!), and he thought that the judge might be sending them back to try and draw it up "just right". He said the judge is probably sympathetic, or he wouldn't be telling them to "try again", he'd just say "get out of my court" or just throw it out.

I do hope he's right...

This is from the latest article on World Net Daily.

Anderson said there are limits on what a federal judge can do to intervene in a state case. She described Lazzara as an exceptionally hard-working judge, adding he is bound by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which he mentioned in his order.
"That's the doctrine that says that even though you're unhappy with the way things went in state court you don't have appeal rights to the federal district court," she explained. "You must go up the food chain through the state courts and appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Anderson said while a federal district court cannot overturn a state court decision, it can insist federal laws are followed.
"For example, the judge can order therapy for Terri," she said. "Under the Americans with Disabilities Act she has a right to therapy. Every day that goes by without therapy is a fresh violation of her ADA right."

I used to think that the ADA law was a bad one, for all the burdens it would cause on business, etc.

Now, I'm taking a new look at this law.

This might be Mr. Schiavo's Achilles' heel!

And if that's the case, I'll be the first to admit that ADA is great for America.

Most liberal judges decide a case on the basis of THEIR preferred outcome. If a lawyer presents the case in a poor fashion, but the judge agrees with the erring lawyer, he will still side with the lawyer because he has predetermined how he thinks the case should end. In that this is a Chile-Clinton type judge, I would expect nothing positive from him. After all, as I have said, he is a Hillary Clinton for President person by virtue of his political standing.