[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
. The new federal law contemplated the possibility that the Schindlers' could bring an action which asserted any possible violations of her rights under the Constitution or United States law. Some such actions would conceivably (perhaps likely) involve matters which were not, in fact, litigated at any time at the federal level (granted, prevailing would be unlikely, but the court should work on the assumption that such a claim could be brought as the new law provided for such a right). In fact, one would have to assume such would be the case if you operate on the presumption that the law was meant to have a purpose. It's hard to see how a court can "know" that there are no such actions which the Schindlers' would pursue pursuant to the new act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have to say I admire your willingness to look at the other side. The thing of it is, and where I think we are having a disagreement, is over what a "claim" is.

When the Schindlers went to federal court, they didn't (and couldn't) ask for a TRO as relief in and of itself. Nor could they ask for a TRO simply to give them time to think of all of their possible federal claims. Rather, they had file a complaint stating the claims they were asserting, THEN ask the Court for a TRO pending resolution of those claims.

In other words, what I am saying is that it was up to the Schindlers to tell the Court the federal claims they were asserting. And the Schindlers did so, asserting a couple of constitutional claims and a some statutory claims.

To get the TRO, the Schindlers had to show that they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of at least one of their claims. Thus, to determine whether to grant the TRO, the judge had to evaluate each and every one of their claims. Now one thing you may or may not realize is that the "substantial likelihood of success" standard is not necessarily a very high one where, as here, the potential "irreparable injury" is severe. But in this case the federal claims asserted by the Schindlers were, simply put, just awful and really stood NO chance of success under current law.

And that, to me, is the really ridiculous part of all of this. Delay and his pals ACTED as if what they did was give the Schindlers new rights and the chance to have a brand new trial on everything. But what they ACTUALLY did was much, much less. What they ACTUALLY did was give federal courts jurisdiction to consider what any lawyer could instantly recognize were total loser claims. The federal courts did consider those claims and properly rejected them.

Again, let me say that I admire your willingness to listen to other views and to look at the stuff that others have cited. I hope that, if you continue to look into this, that you consider that the federal courts had very little choice in the matter if they were to be faithful to the law. In that regard, remember that at least 6 11th circuit judges and 6 Supreme Court judges had to vote against further reviiew of the 2-1 appellate court decision.