[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither of these "precedents" compelled the Florida federal courts to deny the injunctive relief sought in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]
These precedents speak to your "hypothetical".

[ QUOTE ]
The opinion of the dissenter at the appellate court level was more compelling than the majority opinion as well as better in line with the legislative intent of the law in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

"More compelling"? Why? Because it supported your preferred result? "Legislative intent"? As determined by what? HINT: The primary indicator of "legislative intent" is the words the legislature used in the statute in question.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, precisely what harm would have come from reinsertion of the feeding tube pending the review at the federal level that was contemplated by the law in question - i.e. other than supposedly "following the law"?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with anything? But I will answer your question if you will answer mine: What claim, exactly, do you believe was supposed to get "de novo" review by a federal court and did not, in fact, get such review?