SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. Charles E. STEWART, Jr., United States District Judge, Respondent

(dissenting) :

If ever there were a case that cries out for mandamus, this is it.

The district court — acting conscientiously and undoubtedly with the best of intentions1 — nevertheless has committed *760serious error. Two members of this panel (Judges Mulligan and Timbers) expressly agree that Judge Stewart’s orders were egregiously wrong; and the third member of the panel (Judge Feinberg) does “not suggest in the slightest degree that [he] necessarily disagree [s]” with the other two that the orders below were erroneous.

The error committed strikes at the jugular vein of the entire enforcement…