[KellyRae]

"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."

I submit that the standard you suggest should be applied, based upon "precedent," could never be met - neither in the Schiavo case nor in my hypothetical. The basis for the court's determination in Schiavo that there was not a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits was based upon the fact that other Florida state courts had passed on the law. Such would always be the case in my hypothetical, as otherwise federal intervention would not be necessitated in the first instance. For that reason I think the federal law was rendered meaningless by the courts refusal to allow injunctive relief (i.e. the de novo standard itself had no meaning based upon the court's analysis - it was a moot portion of the new law by the court's application of the standard they applied).

I think we both see where the other is coming from, though, so let's just agree to disagree.

I would be curious whether there were any cases comparable to my hypothetical in a capital case, though. My guess is the answer is no, but just curious if you were aware of any.