[KellyRae]

Whatever the "usual" standard in the case of a TRO may be, in this case in particular the standard you suggest does not work. It is a standard judicial axiom that you do not interpret laws in such a manner that they will be rendered meaningless. The fact that the legislation provided for a de novo review of this case coupled with the fact that Terry would die prior to any final resolution of the matter make the standard used by the court inappropriate.

Given the unique nature of this case I fail to see why "precedents" of more general TRO cases apply here. What would be interesting is the question of whether there was a case where such a standard was applied when a stay of execution in a capital case was requested and denied PRIOR to any federal review of the case where federal jurisdiction was proper.

I'll acknowledge that your position on this matter happens to currently be the law in the federal circuit that Florida sits by virtue of the opinion of 2 out of 3 judges. I, for one, found the opinion of the dissenting justice and the arguments supplied by the same to be more compelling. I also suspect that there are many federal judges that would also agree.