Posted on 05/09/2005 5:36:58 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Republican judges killed Terri
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: May 9, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
There's a good reason congressional Republicans will not hold investigative hearings on the judicial homicide of Terri Schiavo.
Republican judges killed her, just as surely as the Democrat judges did.
This is the dirty little secret that would be uncovered if Republican lawmakers scratched beneath the surface of how and why the 11th Circuit ignored the will of the people and the U.S. Congress and the president of the United States in refusing a full review of her case as decided by Republican county Judge George Greer.
While much attention has been placed on the fact that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore, a Bill Clinton appointee, twice violated the will of Congress in refusing the review, less attention has been focused on the fact that every single Republican appointee on the 11th Circuit supported his decision.
The only dissenter was Charles R. Wilson, a Bill Clinton appointee.
All six judges nominated by President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush, including William Pryor – who was recess-appointed just last year to avoid a Democratic filibuster – voted not to save Terri's life.
All six!
This fact was brought to my attention by Denver radio talk-show host Bob Enyart, who is urging those who care about life in this country to reconsider their strategy of electing Republican politicians to appoint them.
It's an idea worth considering.
But it is also critical to understand there will be no accountability for judges of either party who ignore the law.
Let's recall why President Bush was in such a hurry to appoint Pryor in the first place.
He had done the president's dirty work in removing Judge Roy Moore from his lawful seat as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court over the Ten Commandments monument.
It was Pryor who upheld U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument or remove Moore from his elected office. In what can only be viewed as a reward – a quid pro quo – Pryor, unlike many other far more qualified Bush nominees to the federal bench, was promoted to the 11th Circuit.
There, he joined five other Republican colleagues who denied Terri Schiavo her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't know what the answer is, but it is clear the solution to getting better judges is not simply voting Republican.
In fact, as the Terri Schiavo case demonstrates, the fact that all six Republican-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit flouted the law and the will of the people in this case and the fact that the Republicans in the U.S. Congress fear to hold them accountable, it is perhaps less likely that we will solve this problem by just voting Republican.
I'm certainly not suggesting Democrats will solve it. Surely, they will only make it worse. What I am suggesting is that we have a completely unaccountable judiciary in this country. The judges have become the lawmakers. It really doesn't seem to make much difference who appoints them.
Let's suppose Democrats appoint bad judges 99 percent of the time. And let's suppose Republicans appoint bad judges 75 percent of the time. Can we really clean up the judiciary by electing people who are going to appoint bad judges most of the time?
I don't think so.
I don't pretend to have the answers.
But I think I have a firm grasp of the problem.
When was the last time anyone fixed a problem without recognizing its true nature?
As usual, the people are going to have to lead. Don't leave it to the politicians to fix the mess. They won't do it.
the problem is that even the Republican judges are liberals. There is virtually no such thing as a conservative trial lawyer, and judges tend to be chosen from the ranks of trial lawyers.
The solution is dumping the two-party system in favor of the open elections envisioned by the founding fathers of this nation. Then elect conservative representives to State legislatures, and return the appointment of Senators to them.
Repeal the twelfth, sixteenth, seventeenth, twenty-third and twenty-sixth Amendments to the Constitution. Repealing a bad Amendment has precedent. Bad law helps no one but the lawyers. And ultimately, by destroying confidence in the law, it hurts them.
The only dissenter was Charles R. Wilson, a Bill Clinton appointee.
All six judges nominated by President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush, including William Pryor – who was recess-appointed just last year to avoid a Democratic filibuster – voted not to save Terri's life.
All six!
Does anyone really think that putting conservative judges, who are "suppose" to interpret the Constitution as Republican "constructionists", will cure the Judiciary of its activism?
...there will be no accountability for judges of either party who ignore the law.
Judges will always act as though they are above the law, and above the will of the people, no matter what party they may come from. There's no guarantee that Republican judges, appointed to federal courts or the Supreme Court, will act any better than those elitists we have there now.
Judges need to be held accountable to the Congress, and if the guys we now have in the Congress can't do the job then we need new blood that CAN handle the job.
Farah, and the emotionally disabled, are not 'we the people'.
It really makes me wonder why all the Rats are bothering to fillibuster judges at all.
The Constitution doesn't protect disabled or pre-born life. It does, however, protect the life of a 17-year old murderer. Can't you read? It's all there. Just ask the judges.
Sure, you're right. Kill Terri Schiavo. It's the law. </sarcasm>
Sure I'm right, but let's fix the law.
For some reason this little fact has been left off Sean's and Rush's talking points memo.
Very Interesting.
Theodore, I'm the guy who Joseph Farah will interview today about pro-life Republican presidents packing the federal judiciary with pro-abortion Republican judges. Please consider reading my Open Letter to James Dobson at KGOV.com (http://kgov.com/docs/OpenLtrDobsonJudges.html). Thanks, -Bob Enyart
That's: http://kgov.com/docs/OpenLtrDobsonJudges.html
Thanks.
bttt
Also what I've learned in recent months is that my state Senator Jim King is a liberal. Pubs voted for him so the dem wouldn't win and we ended up losing in the long run. Terri lost more than anyone else! King claims he ran as a moderate but I don't remember that and can't find his old campaign site online even via google. Frustrating for me cause I can find just about anything.
ping
Well it won't be fixed in FL until after the next election I think. For an optimist this is not easy to accept. Sen Jim King will NoT allow "his legacy" to be unwritten.
Which amendment granted women the vote?
I say repeal that one.
Women are stupid, emotional, flighty creatures who in many cases are incapable of reason, and in the rest of the cases refuse to engage in it.
End women's suffrage! Hasn't America suffered enough?
is wnd still a reliable news source?
Are you nuts?
This truth cuts to the crux of the matter, power is seductive and judges are no more trustworthy than any other government employee. The original Marbury vs. Madison was a carefully crafted power grab and the Executive and Congress should have recognized it at the time and corrected the usurpation rather than allowing precedent.
He is such a shallow freakin' hypocrite.
By definition, since I'm a woman, yes.
Yep. As much as it pains me to admit it, all of these judges did indeed aid and abet the murder of Terri Schiavo, while at the same time the Republican governor of Florida held up his palms and said there was nothing he could do - - he was powerless against a county probate judge.
It's one thing for Jeb Bush to throw away any political future he may have had, but it's another thing altogether when Republican-appointed judges laugh in our faces. That brutal murder, watched by the entire world for two excruciating weeks, was the most disappointing and disgraceful government fiasco I have ever been. And I can't even blame the scumbag Democrats.
Be honest, now.
How many women do you know who at one time you judged sensible, but then you found out they "just think Elian's better off back with his father"?
Or who "would never have an abortion but I want to be sure the feds keep their laws off my body"?
Or who "don't know about all that tax stuff, but they'd better not mess with my Social Security, and oh by the way ATM fees are way too high"?
Do you think it was right or wrong to kill Terri Schindler?
Assuming you're not being sarcastic, you are far too hard on women. Many males exhibit the same type of stupidity.
That's the problem with much of the FReeper analysis too.
bttt
What wasn't in dispute is the law and how it should be interpreted in a neutral fashion at an appellate level.
The problem most would have here is that if the Republicans nominated strict Constitutionalist judges (as they well should), the judges would still be blamed. Republicans and 'conservatives' don't want Constitutionally based rulings, they want rulings in their favor.
Eloquent sentiments, indeed!
It's not beside the point when you look at Greer, who is a Republican. If you're saying he ruled according to the law and that that was the right thing to do, you are also saying it was right to kill Terri Schindler.
I don't know if he made the right rulings or not. They don't seem right to me, but all I have to go on in judging that is someone's spin. Nobody wants to talk facts in this case. Just spin.
I don't want to be lumped into that crowd, but these threads have proven your point to be generally correct.
You nailed it.
The problem with Farah's analysis is that it is conclusory. It is void of analytical content. It discusses only the outcome of the case and the political affiliation of the presidents who nominated the involved judges.
The article contains no discussion of the relative merits of the majority and minority opinions. It does not discuss the hurdles involved in reversing a trial court's finding. It does not probe the question of whether or not civil procedure is equipped to handle "tough cases" (e.g., should there be additional procedural safeguards? If so, when?).
There are certainly arguments on both sides of "legislated from the bench." No analyses beyond the opinions themselves, again, other than conclusory or politically motivated ones, have been brought forth as to whether or not the Palm Sunday legislation was constitutional. If it was, there is a question of whether or not the process used by the Federal Court System adhered to legislative intent. One can see pieces of both sides of this argument in the opinions of the courts. Additional argument and analysis will no doubt be offered in time, as the legal scholars dissect the case. Some will side with the dissent, and find that the courts did practice judical activism, by subverting legislative intent. No doubt, that side lost the case, but it's possible to identify a number of cases where the majority got it wrong, given the benefit of hindsight.
Actually, the Constitution applies to all Americans, even disabled Americans. Killing people because they are disabled is not only illegal and unconstitutional. It's also wrong.
Oh, I don't know. Checks and balances means that EVERY branch will overreach from time to time. Marshall decided that the power the plaintiff was asking the court to exercise, was a power the court did not have under the Constitution, even if the legislature tried to give that power to the court.
The long term problem that I see is the unwillingness of Congress to exercise its constitutionally granted power of impeachment to shitcan judges that make public policy, or subvert the will of the people as expressed in statutes. At some point the fancy word-play of lawyers and judges needs to be brought back to earth. That ain't happening.
Sounds about right I'd say.
But the plaintiffs didn't ask for that. They wanted to rehash their appellate claims that had been turned down repeatedly in state court.
The courts rule on what is before them, or at least they should.
Can't prove it from where Terri's buried.
But the plaintiffs didn't ask for that
I think it took them until the second time around, but they got around to asking for it. And IIRC, even on the first go-round, there was a dissenting opinon (that the case was not being handled per the people's intent, as expressed in legislation) at the Circuit Court.
The general points I was making with my previous post were that Farah's article had no analysis, and your assertion that the Republican judges FOLLOWED the law is subject to well-reasoned disagreement. See judge's dissenting opinion.
I guess the situation is just a lot simpler in my view. When you strip it down to the essentials, what Greer had to decide was:
Is it right or wrong to withhold water and food from a person who cannot voice objection?
"Evidence" is not necessary to answer such a question.
Actually, I don't think she is buried at all. She was cremated following her murder and apparently the scumbag "husband" won't tell Terri's parents where the ashes are.
It still staggers my mind that the (presumably corrupt) Clinton appointment was the only judge with any sense of right and wrong. The world is turned upside down.
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.