Show a little respect....is that too much to ask?
Posted on 04/24/2005 5:09:31 AM PDT by JBW
A prominent member of the Senate leadership recently described a Supreme Court justice as "a disgrace." An equally prominent member of the leadership of the House of Representatives on the other side of the political aisle has characterized another justice's approach to adjudication as "incredibly outrageous." These excoriations follow other examples of personalized attacks on members of the judiciary by senior political figures. So it is time to take a deep breath, step back, and inject a little perspective into the recent heated rhetoric about judges and the courts.
We might start by getting a firm grip on the reality that our independent judiciary is the most respected branch of our government, and the envy of the world.
***
But, absent lawlessness or corruption in the judiciary, which is astonishingly rare in this country, impeaching judges who render decisions we do not like is not the answer. Nor is the wholesale removal of jurisdiction from federal courts over such matters as prayer, abortion, or flag-burning. While Congress certainly has the constitutional power, indeed responsibility, to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts to ensure that judges decide only matters that are properly within their constitutional role and expertise, restricting the jurisdiction of courts in response to unpopular decisions is an overreaction that ill-serves the long-term interests of the nation. As much as we deplore incidents of bad judging, we are not necessarily better off with--and may dislike even more--adjudications made by presidents or this year's majority in Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
A probate judge in Florida orders the starvation to death of an innocent woman and we're supposed to be tolerant?
That judge ought to be tried for murder, not just impeached.
We're not talking about an unpopular division of an estate by a probate judge. We're talking descent into barbarism, far beyond the scope of their legitimate power, by a series of judges (including appeals and Supreme Court justices) who have departed from humanity with this atrocity, showing utter disregard for the value of human life.
This started with a groundless creation of a constitutional "right to an abortion" by the U.S. Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade) where such a right does not, NOR EVER HAS, existed.
If America were still a civilized nation, we'd put all of these black-robed outlaws behind bars.
I used to respect Ted's opinions, but I'm starting to think it was his wife that gave him credence. God bless her soul.
Then I would like to know what is the answer. We have too many corrupt judges who are drunk on power, and the more they are allowed to get away with imposing their personal (and skewed) visions of what THEY think our country should be, the less freedom we all have. As recently demonstrated in FL, our very lives are not safe when a tyrannical judge is allowed to keep sitting on the bench.
Impeaching bad judges might not be a perfect answer, but it's better than allowing them to be dictators.
Olson is arse-kissing in the hope that he will have easy sledding to the Supreme Court. Fat chance, sapolio.
Sounds like Olson is advocating an untouchable dictatorship in black robes.
Stunning.
"We might start by getting a firm grip on the reality that our independent judiciary is the most respected branch of our government, and the envy of the world."
EXCUSE ME?!?!?!
Hopefully, this article is a vehicle for Ted Olsen to lay out some of his legal/political thoughts prior to his nomination to become either Associate or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the US. He certainly must be ranked high among the small group of top contenders. What a gift that would be for the nation.
Well said.
I fully agree.
Elect a president and both houses of Congress that will nominate and "advise" the installation of judges that are "strict constructionists" of the written, historical Constitution. That is why it is CRITICALLY important that Frist and the Senate Republicans detonate the "nuclear option" to reduce the impact of the un-precedented obstructionism of Senate Democrats via filibuster.
Well said.
Bump
If America were still a civilized nation, we'd put all of these black-robed outlaws behind bars.
2 posted on 04/24/2005 5:21:40 AM PDT by NoControllingLegalAuthority
Amen and Amen!!!!
The reality is that an innocent, disabled woman has been executed by order of a judge, snuffed out in a prolonged torture of starvation, and the judiciary, by and large, considered it lawful and appropriate. They should all be impeached if not prosecuted.
You are part of the problem, Olson. Do not tell me my rage is in need of the remedy of a deep breath.
If I were not too old to put theory into front-line practice, I'd be advocating overt rebellion because of these judges. I have never been angrier in all my life.
I agree that George Greer should be tried for murder, along with Michael Schiavo and several other conspirators. Read the investigative article in theempirejournal.com to see where the money trail went. Senator King was the creator of the law that Greer made retroactive so they could kill Terri by removing "artificial life support" of her feeding tube. According to the article, Jodi Centanze (Michael's girlfriend) was the director of Liberty American Insurance Group, a multimillion dollor corporation under the umbrella of Philadelphia Consolidated holding company. This umbrella company donated to Sen. King's campaign. Michael Schiavo was a listed officer of Liberty American, even though he holds no insurance license. There is a question whether Michael took out an insurance policy called a "viatical settlement" on Terri, which would pay off for a person judged terminally ill who dies.
This is outrageous! Who decides what is politically correct? The majority does! Should we let a vocal minority rule and ruin our judicial system through greed and corruption while the majority backs off?
We the people keep trying; unfortunately, when those we elect to represent us get to D.C., something happens to them. I think they mistake the strident screeches of the MSM for the voice of the people, and act accordingly.
When judges play politics, they deserve to be treated like politicians.
Respected by whom?
You have judges masturbating in court rooms, taking bribes, sleeping during trials, more importantly telling us the Constitution says things that clearly are not there and telling us things that are plainly written in it are not there. Cap that with a judge directing the torture death of a handicapped lady in Florida. The judge claimed she was in a “Persistent Vegetative State”, a view held by three of the five experts he allowed.
Oh, respected by who? Probably the same people who think the Israelis were behind 9/11 or the people who think there is a vast Right Wing Conspiracy or the people that think “Bush Lied” when he told us what he was being told by the intelligence community. Or maybe better yet by the people who think there is overwhelming evidence of Global Warming and the oil companies are keeping us from using the 100 mile per gallon carburetor.
We have a fantastic legal system. It serves the purposes of its constituents admirably. If you are a judge or an attorney, it does well by you.
If you are a normal everyday citizen, you might even get justice as a by-product of the legal system, or then again, you might not.
In the Terry Schiavo case, as in countless others, the legal system made it clear their priorities are perfecting their position as the ultimate authority, deflecting any possible questioning of their authority, increasing the span of governmental control, increasing the take of the legal system; then if there is anything left over, justice can be done as a by-product.
Mr. Olsen’s article loses sight of the point. Just because the majority thinks something is so, it is not necessarily so, even if they are judges:
If a judge says a dog’s tail is a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Four, calling a leg a tail does not make it a tail, even if it is called a tail by a judge.
The founding fathers gave our government a tripod on which to stand, not a monopod.
The Executive and the Legislative were to function as a check and balance on the Judiciary. Serve as a check and balance, not to bow down and worship it.
I don't think so.
Bull.
FReepers generally favor judges who interpret the law as it exists over those who make law. In the Shiavo case, judges (plural) concluded that applicable law (a) did not require an unconscious person to be kept on life support indefinitely and (b) the husband, not the parents, had the right to decide whether to do so. Many FReepers disagree with these conclusions. But it is inconsistent to urge judges to interpret the law as it exists except in cases where it leads to a result they don’t like. Appeal to a “higher law” doesn’t work because that substitutes one person’s (the judge’s) decision about which should be applied: the law as it exists or his or her version of some “higher law.” In the final analysis, if the people don’t like the results of applying a law on the books, they should try to change the law, not the judge’s decision to apply it. They will be able to change the law if a majority of the people agree. (Changing the judge (at least a federal judge) is constitutionally much more difficult, because “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour….” No impeachment process would consider mere disagreement with a judge’s opinion to be bad behavior.)
Those who believe that no one on life support should ever be removed from it should consider the consequences. A large number of old people die slowly (e.g., progressive systems failure) rather than quickly (e.g., fatal heart attack). Many or even most of these slow-dying old people could be kept “alive” by extraordinary means of life support, perhaps for years. Suppose the law required that to be done; then a higher and higher percentage of our national resources would be devoted to these cases as life-support technologies improved. Suppose the cost reached 20% or even 40% of GDP. Should we do that for “moral” reasons because every life is sacred? Absolutists might say yes, but, given finite resources, every choice implies tradeoffs. That percentage of our resources would not be available for other potentially life-saving measures (e.g., safer roads, houses, food, etc.). How to assess the tradeoffs is an inherently political process, and society’s decision will be reflected in its laws. Once those laws are enacted, they must be followed until they are changed through legitimate political means.
Those who believe that the law ought to require unlimited life support or that it ought to award custody of a disabled person to the parents rather than the spouse should lobby to change the law, not to impeach the judges who interpret today’s law.
The point you so conveniently neglect is the fact that at both the Federal AND State level, the "other" two "co-equal" branches of government disagreed with the judges, and had PASSED LAWS contravening the judges action. The judges simply ignored the other two branches, and went ahead and "did their own thing". There "is" a reason we have three branches of gov't---and last time I looked, two out of three constituted a majority.
What about decisions that violate the Constitution? Hmmmmmm?
I suppose Olson agrees that judges have the power to force legislatures to raise taxes, when the Constitution clearly gives that function to the legislative branch, solely?
Far too many humped-up liberal judges have developed delusions of omnipotence.
This is a dumb piece. It embraces the Left's demagoguery about judicial critics threatening judges and in essence accepts the judiciary as the most powerful branch. The problem is the lack of respect judges have for the judiciary, the elected branches, and the Constitution. Just read their opinions. My friend Ted practices before these people, and is friends with many of them. I adore him, but this piece is nonsense. If you want to see really tough-talk about judges, read what Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR had to say (and wanted to do, in some cases)about the Supreme Court. This is a diversion by those on our side who wish to complain about the judiciary but do nothing about it.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Here's a summary of how I concluded on my blog this morning:
But Olson doesn't offer much of a solution either. Telling politicians to get a "grip" on reality is a nice start, but it won't take us very far.
We need a more fundamental change in our understanding of the judiciary and the way in which judges should work. That new understanding should not only inform Congress in its judicial confirmations, but should also inform judges in their decisions and deportment.
Judges who view their role as policymakers open the door to the politicization of the judiciary. Judges who view their role as neutral arbitrators of Constitutional principles have a greater claim to independence.
For more: http://www.jonathanbwilson.com/2005.04.01_arch.html#1114340201269
It's all right here, in my own blog -
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260506/ref=pd_ts_b_9/102-9697168-0220907?v=glance&s=books&n=53
As I read the federal law (caveat: I'm not a lawyer), it simply gave Schiavo's parents the right to bring a fresh action in the federal courts (specifically the Middle District of Florida), but did not change the substantive law ("Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.")
Refusing to base their decisions on the highest law in the land, or in the state in the case of non-federal judges, is the very definition of lawlessness, is it not? Going beyond the power granted them by the people, is also lawless. Far too many judges are doing both.
I would predict that even if Congress were to remove certain areas from their jurisdiction, I would bet dollars to donuts that that the nine in black would find such a law unconstitutional, even though the Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to do that.
But Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary are working on those as well. The Campaign Fiance Reform act was a blatant attack on the first amendment. The Brady Law, and the now defunct (but only because we held Congress feet to the fire, and showed them the hot pincers) Assault Weapons Bill, not to mention the still mostly in effect Gun Control Act and the 1986 machine gun ban, are even more blatant attacks on the second amendment. The Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to consider cases involving the Constitutionality of those laws. The only rulings on gun control laws they've made have been on grounds other than a violation of the second amendment.
"... this piece is nonsense".
I agree with you. Sounds like we should all hold hands around the campfire, sing Kumbaya, and eat semores - gag me with a spoon. He sounds like a Moderate to me.
When laws passed by legislators elected by the people and when referendums approved by the people mean absolutely nothing (time and time again), then there's a problem with the system.
Show a little respect....is that too much to ask?
I will say this one more time...
Terri died because King Greer denied ORAL administration of food and/or water.
First: Could you please supply some evidence that Terri was unconscious. This is the first time I have heard that.
Second: Could you please supply the source of the applicable law that says ORAL administration of food and/or water is artificial life support.
Thanks...I will await your answer.
My friend, if alive today, Thomas Jefferson would be leading the charge....In his own words:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so.
They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judices est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
frankiep: EXCUSE ME?!?!?!
That's pointy-headed-elitist talk for "You should be thankful you have a plate of dog poop for dinner. The rest of the world is eating cat poop."
With all due respect that conclusion is simplistic, misleading and ignorant of the facts of the case.
OK. Then provide a better summary. Don't just allege my mother wears army boots.
You characterize this whole case as a simple probate hearing the same as thousands of others but this small list (small in terms of what else could be added to it) makes it clear that this case was anything but typical. Typical probate cases are not surrounded by unanswered intrigue at every turn concerning nearly every player. Typical cases don't have state and federal legislatures making laws in an effort to force judicial review to take place. Typical cases don't involve higher courts simply dismissing out of hand those laws.
Portraying this case as typical in any aspect, which is what you did, is like saying "Jesus was just one of thousands that the Romans nailed to a cross. The only difference is the fuss people made about it."
Of all of Terri's supporters that characterization is only accurate of a small fraction of a percentage. The vast majority of us who supported her do not believe that "no one on life support should ever be removed from it." That notion is completely false thus the premise for the statement you follow it with is false.
I plead guilty to careless use of language in my original post. It has led to some arguments that, while interesting, are not directly relevant to my point.
Instead of saying [at post 24] “…judges (plural) concluded that applicable law (a) did not require an unconscious person to be kept on life support indefinitely…” I should have said “…judges (plural) concluded that applicable law (a) did not require a person in Schiavo’s condition to be kept alive….”
The question of whether Schiavo was “unconscious” depends on knowledge of the facts and the scientific definition of “unconscious” that I do not have. Also whether being tube fed is legally deemed to be “life support” is beyond my technical knowledge. But arguing with me for misstating the facts as you see them is not addressing my key point: if the law did not require Schiavo to be kept alive and if it gave the decision power to the spouse rather than the parents, then we should not criticize the judge(s) who applied it, but rather – if we believe the law is wrong – we should criticize and work to change the law.
I will address some of your other points:
The "husband" had a common law wife for ten years and two children by her during the time he was soliciting the courts approval to end Terri's life on the basis of his spousal guardianship rights.
If he was still married to Terri, he could not have another “common law wife.” The law permits only one wife at a time.
There are numerous credible reasons to suspect the "husband" of abusing Terri both before and after her collapse which were never investigated and summarily dismissed as irrelevant by the Judge.
Perhaps the law was not diligent in pursuing his alleged wrongdoing or perhaps the law investigated and found insufficient evidence to prosecute him. Either way, he was never convicted of any such crime and the law therefore affords him the presumption of innocence. A judge who terminated his spousal rights on the basis that “although he was never convicted of a crime against Schiavo, he ought to have been” would be abridging his rights without due process.
Many commentators have pointed out that the spouse was, to say the least, not an admirable person. However, even if we stipulate that the spouse was diabolical and the parents angelic, that changes nothing, for the law giving guardianship to the spouse rather than the parents has no clause that states “…provided the spouse is at least as nice as the parents.”
The Judge's final order specifically prohibited feeding by natural means which is contrary to FL statute law and certainly contary to common sense when you claim the issue concerns "artificial life support."
Aside from the point I made above about how I [mis]characterized the judges’ decisions and should have simply said “kept alive” without getting into the means, I am certain that if Schiavo had taken a knife and fork and proceeded to eat a meal, the judge would not have held her in contempt. Certainly a person unable to do so can be nourished through a feeding tube or IV. Whether these are “natural means” I leave to the law. But they strain my sense of the English language.
(1) The other two branches are the legislative and executive. The executive cannot pass laws.
(2) Congress did not pass a law "contravening the judges action." The law it passed simply gave the parents the right to bring a fresh action in the Federal courts. It explicitly stated that it did not otherwise change Federal or state law.
(3) There is no Constitutional provision for the three branches of government to vote, let alone that two out of three carries. Rather it reserves the interpretation of the law solely to the judiciary. Moreover, the courts can override a law that they consider unconstitutional (not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but established long ago in the case Madison v. Marbury).
True, but the legislative and executive branches together (or the legislative alone by sufficient majority) CAN (and did--on both state and Federal level) pass laws in this case.
"(2) Congress did not pass a law "contravening the judges action." The law it passed simply gave the parents the right to bring a fresh action in the Federal courts. It explicitly stated that it did not otherwise change Federal or state law.
Yes, but given that law, it was entirely within both Jeb and George Bush's authority as heads of the executive branches, to take Terry Schiavo into executive custody and order the feeding tube re-inserted until such actions in the courts were taken.
(3) There is no Constitutional provision for the three branches of government to vote, let alone that two out of three carries. Rather it reserves the interpretation of the law solely to the judiciary. Moreover, the courts can override a law that they consider unconstitutional (not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but established long ago in the case Madison v. Marbury).
Sorry, but completely and totally wrong. The final "interpreter" of the law is the legislative branch, as it can institute any changes in the Constitution it can get passed by sufficient majority(ies). And PLEASE don't hoist out "Marbury vs. Madison" to me, as that decision was a gross and total usurpation of power by the judicial branch, and SHOULD have been scotched by the Congress when it was attempted. That was the first of many "death-cuts" imposed on our Constitution.
If you read Judge Greer's final order you will find that he prohibited feeding and hydration by natural means and that means by mouth, oral feeding or drinking, IOWs no spoons, forks, cups, ice chips etc. If you need a scientist to help you understand the difference between conscious an unconscious then your sense of the English language is not the only thing that is strained.
It is not, and never has been, a techical term. It is a legal distinction only. In this case "nutrition and hydration" (as the law refers to food and water) was NOT considered "life support" by FL law when Terri collapsed. Hence the bogus nature of her husbands claim that she once said she wouldn't want to be kept on life support therefore it's OK to starve and dehydrate her to death.
But FL law changed in 1999 (she collapsed in '90) to include nutrition and hydration as life support that could be witheld. That change of law came about as a direct result of Judge Greer sitting on a board that drafted legislative recommendations to pass on to the FL Congress. He and others on that board have ties to the hospice industry. Can you say 'conflict of interest?' How about 'prejudiced jurist?' Or 'unethical conduct?'
You are still protraying (trying at any rate) this case as a run of the mill, by the numbers probate case. At this point ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.