Maybe the Republican presidents tended to be more ethical. Nice guys finish last.
Excellent piece, thank you. I've been arguing this for a long time. I had no idea Pryor was one of the 11th Jerkoffs who voted against doing anything about the district court openly defying intent of Congress and refusing to have de nove hearing. After Bush went to the trouble to get him a recess appointment. And I believe the lovely Herr Doktor Reichskankler Advokat Greer is also supposed to be a Republican. Once 99.99 percent of them put on that black robe, it's over.
this is a very reasoned and well-written piece. thanks.
You people really need to stop throwing our own overboard and blame the bad guys in this situation; Greer, Felos and Michael Schiavo.
One cannot reasonably expect the courts to rememdy defective legislation. THAT is the issue here.
Florida has catered to the death industry by creating enabling legislation to actively kill non terminal patients by means of starvation and dehydration.
We cannot blame judges for this. IF we want this fixed, we must be all over our lawmakers.
We may not like the legal outcome, but it started with our lawmakers.
Yes. Another odious judicial ruling worth mentioning is the dismemberment of unborn infants inside their mother's wombs and calling that a Constitutional Right. Working "inside the system" is not going to change a thing. The fiasco in Florida proves that Republicans have absolutely no intention of changing the status quo, unless forced to do so by the threat of loss of office. Therefore, no Republican who does not call for impeachment of pro-abortion judges, and executive nullification of their murderous "rulings", will get my vote in the future. None.
Excellent piece, very well written and researched.
This is an excellent analysis.
Leftist judges give us sexual predators in working class neighborhoods. And cable TV for jails. Trust me, it matters.
Samuel Chase (April 17, 1741-June 19, 1811), was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and a signer of the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland. He was well-known as a Federalist-partisan.
Chase was born in Maryland and educated in Baltimore. He studied law and practiced it in Maryland. In 1774 he represented Maryland at the Continental Congress, and was re-elected in 1775, serving until 1778. In 1786, living in Baltimore, he was appointed chief justice of the District Criminal Court, and then became Chief Justice of the Maryland General Court. In 1796 he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving there until his death.
Chase was served with 6 articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives in late 1804. Two more articles would later be added. The Jeffersonian Republican-controlled United States Senate began an impeachment trial against Justice Chase in early 1805. He was charged with political bias, but was acquitted by the Senate of all charges on March 1, 1805. To this day, he remains the only Supreme Court justice to be impeached.
He is not to be confused with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, the man on the $10,000 bill.
But don't forget that the sheer number of appointments a President makes to all levels of the federal court system can have a strong effect.
Judge Pryor ( a former AG for Alabama) led the charge against Judge Roy Moore.
He did not stand up for Judge Moore because he wanted this
Judicial appointment.
"One more reason in a long history that judicial appointments will not solve the problem of leftist judges and judicial tyranny was seen on Mar. 23, 2005, in the request for emergency rehearing of the 11th Circuit en banc of the case of Schiavo v. Schiavo when George W. Bush recess appointment William H. Pryor, Jr., voted AGAINST rehearing. Rather than joining in the cogent and spirited dissent of Judge Tjoflat or associating himself with the dissent of Judge Wilson (a Clinton appointee) in the original three-judge panel, he voted with the majority in the 10-2 denial of rehearing."
PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT...
The vote was 7 to 5 against, we dont know how Pryor voted.
There were two dissents but not all 'votes' require a dissent... this was another example of media mis-information.
Correct info on the appeals case can be found here:
http://southernappeal.blogspot.com/
Reagan wasn't, but let liberals get control of his administration.
Both major parties are now controlled by liberals.
You took the time to write a long rant, without taking the time familiarize yourself with the basic facts.
When a Federal Circuit Court denies an en banc hearing (and when the Supreme Court denies cert) - unlike in an opinion when a Circuit Court panel or the Supreme Court actually hears a case - there is no publically released tally of votes. All we know is that the majority - here, at least 7 of the 12 judges sitting on the 11th circuit - voted against denial.
It is not required or even typical that those judges or justices who favored hearing the case to write or join a written dissent from the denial of an en banc hearing or denial of cert; it is entirely discretionary. Here, 2 11th circuit judges wrote or joined a written dissent. Thus, all we can assme is that vote denying an en banc hearing was somewhere between 10-2 and 7-5. But we do not know which way Pryor voted, from the fact that he didn't write or join a written dissent.
Now you might want to slam Pryor for not auuthoring or joining a written dissent, but that's another matter.
What the law just passed by Congress did was authorize a federal court to go back to square one and examine the actual merits of the Terri Schiavo case, not simply review whether the previous judge behaved illegally. Congress authorized the federal courts to retry this case from scratch -- "de novo" as the legislation says in legal terminology.
That is precisely what the federal courts have refused to do. There is no way that federal District Judge James Whittemore could have examined this complex case, with its contending legal arguments and conflicting experts, from scratch in a couple of days, even if he had worked around the clock without eating or sleeping.
Judge Whittemore ignored the clear meaning of the law passed by Congress and rubberstamped the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
Nor could the judges on the Court of Appeals have gone through all of this material "de novo" in a couple of days after Judge Whittemore's decision. They have added to the number of judges that liberals can count but they have not followed the law -- which is what really counts.
The federal judges have rushed to judgment -- in a case where there was no rush legally, despite a medical urgency. Terri Schiavo was not dying from anything other than a lack of food and water. These federal judges could have ordered the feeding tube restored while they gave this issue the thorough examination authorized -- and indeed prescribed -- by the recent Congressional legislation.
Sounds like there's definitely a case for tossing out a few judges here. Of course, if something were going to be done about this, it would have already happened. Why are Bush and Congress not raising a stink over the judges not re-trying the case 'de novo?'
Your first mistake was expecting justice. What we have is a legal industry by, of, and for the benefit of the elite lawyer class and those with the assets to buy it.