Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Strikes me that teh plaintiffs also made a pleading error. They didn't ask for a trial, just a TRO. Although maybe there's a separate pleading. But how is the judge supposed to have a trial overnight?

SOS W
 

Hey, I just called too! But I asked them to page Heywood Jablomi. They did! Hilarity!

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

I think they intended to have a TRO pending a trial -- the question is, why are they appealing the TRO but not trying to go straight to trial?

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

They want the feeding tube reinserted. If they wait for a trial the whole thing could be moot.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Forgive this non-litigator for asking, but why not try to do both? Can they not move to trial while appealing the TRO?

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

You normally do both at once. The TRO is part and parcel to a trial in which you are likely to win on the merits.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

This non-litigator has no idea. Perhaps they are, but the media is only reporting the TRO appeal? Any litigators wanna weigh in?

too slow - leagl already answered.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

How about, "save millions of lives"? Very little procedural about that.

And, when you can say the system is more important than a life, I have to shudder.

The Bush Legacy
 

Objection. Unresponsive.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

It was always my impression that you had to do both - that the TRO would only be considered if you were also setting up to have the issue be properly determined after the initial harm was avoided.

(Sigh.) STP.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

As others have alluded you typically do both at once. The purpose of the TRO is to preserve the status quo until a full hearing on the merits. Most of the news reports describe the new legislation as requiring a trial de novo. (FWIW: I have not seen the legislation) If that is the case, yes, they may have screwed up by not requesting a hearing on the merits in conjunction with the TRO.

Lesson learned form this? One should not use the Catholic legal help desk to find competent appellate counsel in Florida.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

That's basically my question. They figured they'd get a TRO, and then they'd still have a trial, but the momentum would be to leave the tube in and the trial would be over whether to remove it. Yet, what's odd is there's no effort to have a full trial on the merits scheduled, even an abbreviated one. What's more, a TRO lasts only 10 days--they want a preliminary injunction as well, but haven't sought that (can't get that, though, if they can't get a TRO).

Anyway, having lost the TRO, it seems that they should fight the battle on two levels--the CTA for the TRO and push the trial court to expedite the full-merits trial.

Is the battle truly over just the TRO? I suppose if they win at the CTA, they can go back the trial court and get a prelim. injunction, but he still needs to hold a full trial (and hubby will force it) sooner or later.

Penske has been busy!
 

Seeing this made me think fondly of socks from years gone by, like Hillary's Fat Ass.

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_...60/2008cc1.swf

Amusing cartoon re: Hillary in 2008. Contains sound, otherwise not work inappropriate if you can stomach seeing Hillary in fishnets.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Without the TRO, she's dead before thay can have any meaningful trial.

Not to be to cynical, but it will take them some time to line up any new bullshit and wrap it in a pretty bow, while the husband can lean on lengthy trial/hearing record(s) and favorable prior rulings. Much easier for his side.

S_A_M