Early this morning, Judge Whittemore denied Theresa Schiavo's parents' motion for a TRO. Here is Michael Schiavo's Brief in Opposition to the Motion for an Injunction. Earlier I linked to the Schiavo complaint.
Update: I've now read Judge Whitmore's careful opinion. My Schiavo predictions last night were right on target, except that the judge takes an even stronger stance: he pretty much finds all five counts to be without merit.
Update 2: If these medical facts are accurate, they paint a compelling picture.
Update 3 (3/23): Here's a contrary medical analysis of the above.
michael, would like your opinion on the standard the judge applied regarding whether to grant the TRO. Clearly this would be the standard applied in any “normal” federal request for a tro. However, I am not so sure that Congress’ silence on the standard to apply for such a request should have necessarily been a reason to assume that the normal federal standard should apply. This was not a normal situation, and not a normal statute. I think Congress intended for the parents to get their day in court to fully litigate the due process issues. If you look at the motions and their sparse discussion of these issues, its clear that although the judge was fairly logical, the legal issues have really not gotten “their day in court”. By applying the “likely to prevail” standard, I think the judge stymied what the true (albeit unarticulated) intent of Congress really was. I think Congress intented a much lower standard, probably that the claims are merely non-frivilous. well, silence is golden, and as the judge wrote the constitutionality of the new statute is questionable. but would like your thoughts.