[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You speak of precedents where there are none - this is a unique case. And the law becomes meaningless without the grant of injunctive relief - news flash - Terry Schiavo will die without it, so what purpose in your mind is served by the law congress enacted last weekend?

[/ QUOTE ]



After temporary relief is granted a full de novo review of the case is held at the district court level.

There is precedent for what standards to apply for a temporary injunction. Just because this case is somewhat unique (though similar to a capital case) doesn't mean that the precedent doesn't apply. I will say, once again, that if congress wanted a different temporary relief standard, they could have legislated one. They didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Question: If congress passes a law requiring review of a death penalty case (which case was never reviewed by the federal courts in the first place) and a federal judge stays a state execution scheduled for a few days following the enactment of the new federal law using the logic of the dissenter in the Schiavo case - in your mind is that judge being an "activist" judge or following the law?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on if they were following existing law and precedent. If the standard for a temporary stay were met, then they would not be an activist judge.