Full text of Judge Whittemore's denial of a temporary injunction is right
here.
My hunch was right--the judge wasn't at all pleased with the Schindler lawyers' failure to cite case law. He found that there wasn't a substantial likelihood of success--even though he found the other circumstances for an injunction existed. But significantly, he didn't rule on the law's constitutionality.
He then proceeded to make ashes of every count of the Schindlers' claim. Even though this appears to be a pretty sound ruling, I'm wondering if Congress might try to impeach this guy. Poll and a breakdown of the ruling after the jump ...
Count 1: Violation of right to fair trial
The Schindlers claimed that Judge Greer essentially became an advocate for Terri's death and therefore denied Terri a fair trial. This is a pretty serious allegation--if true, it probably would be grounds for impeaching Greer.
However, Whittemoore found that the Schindlers failed to prove that claim. The Schindlers ignored Greer's statutory duty to act as fact-finder. To find for the Schindlers, in Whittemore's view Greer would have had to ignore the facts and thus violate his oath of office.
Count 2: Denial of due process
The Schindlers claimed that Greer failed to appoint a guardian ad litem or an attorney for Terri, and also failed to personally evaluate Terri's condition. All told, this was a denial of Terri's right to due process.
According to Whittemore, the Schindlers cited a statute relating to committment to a facility--and that didn't apply in this situation. He also found that the Schindlers ignored the record in claiming no guardian ad litem was appointed--in fact, three of them were. As for the failure to appoint an attorney, Whittemore found that would not have offered more protection for Terri.
Count 3: Denial of equal protection under the law
This count was denied for the same reasons as count 1.
Counts 4-5: Denial of religious freedom
In Count 4, the Schindlers claimed that removing the tube would violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act because it would infringe Terri's right to free exercise of her Catholic faith. A similar claim was made in Count 5, claiming removing the tube would be a violation of the tenets of her Catholic faith. But that requires state action--and Whittemore found there was no state action. Not only that, but use of the courts doesn't constitute state action.