Posted on 03/25/2005 7:41:58 AM PST by carolinacrazy
A majority of freepers are incredibly upset at activist judges attempting to legislate from the bench. I share these feelings. But in the Schiavo case, did these judges go against any existing laws, or did they do their jobs while being contrained by the actual law? Is it the opinion of many here that activist judges are ok if the outcome is what you want? Maybe we need some new laws established and the judges actually had their hands tied on this one. Please let me know your opinion.
Augggghh, not every thought requires another vanity post!
Seems to be. Not my opinion though.
FR seems COMPLETELY overwhelmed by the Terri Cult.
Yet another thread is oh-so-helpful!
Apart from Terri being saved one of the great things about a Judicial reversal in this case would have been seeing the DUmmies cry about Judicial Activism.
I think most of the judges did their jobs within the confines of the law. Judges can't have passions or personal opinions or they would not be impartial. That impartiality in a life and death situation like this appears cold and mean, but this appearance is the result of the necessary impartiality judges must posses when making decisions.
I do question some of the things that happened in Greer's courtroom, but once it went to the appellate level, no laws were broken and no precidents were set. The system functioned impartially and I don't think there was any legislating from the bench.
Maybe it should be renamed www.TerrysRepublic.com - seems if you disagree with the current groupthink on the matter, you suddenly become an evil, h*ll-bound commie liberal democrat.
You don't even have to disagree with their belief. Even if you question ONE comment or rationale of their's, you are labeled an "evil, h*ll-bound commie liberal democrat."
Here is what the judiciary has done in this case. I leave it up to you whether this is right or wrong.
That is sadly true.
I don't recall a time on FR when people were so unhinged over an issue.
I knew there were many other people with the same experience. I suppose most of the more moderates here are going keep a low profile. This issue is like wet paint. Touch it and you are marked for a long time.
It is never a good thing to display the same ignorance your enemy does. I understand your point though, but I refuse to join those decroded pieces of crap.
I should have identified the source of the quote. It is from Frank Salvato in a piece posted here today.
So what law is it that denies a person water in this country? That was a NEW law enacted by Judge Greer.
As my name implies, I'm not even a moderate! (Although, I am thinking about changing it to Bluegrass Conservative - with libertarian tendencies.)
I don't necessarily disagree with the folks on the issue. I wish that Michael Schiavo would cede his rights of guardianship to the Schindlers and the whole ordeal be over.
What I disagree with many of these folks on is the role the judicial and executive branches should be playing. I don't want activist judges, even if they promote the outcome I desire.
If I'm not mistaken, the legal guardian has the right to cease all treatment to a person in this condition if the person is not capable of speaking for themselves.
But. I once told a then more experienced attorney that an appellate court wouldn't be able to reach a certain decision if they applied the law correctly. He snapped "They do what they want!" And he was right, they did.
Something is out of whack. The judges here had other plausible avenues to take, but their judicial mindset caused them not to meddle in this case. Examples where they do the opposite are legion, but death penalty cases are propably the simplest to analogize.
The courts are certainly within the law when they cause a heinous killer's appeals to last 20 or 30 years, there are lots of states that haven't executed anyone in decades although they have death cases. But they could just as easily have an attitude that quickly dismisses most of those appeals and moves the process along as society wants. They don't. But in this case, they could have allowed Terri to live but found it legally problematic to do so. In my mind the analogy proves the courts are spending our time, money and mental energy in the wrong places.
It's just like the environmental situation. Courts think nothing of tying whole industries up for decades over a spotted owl, but they are nervous about a Terri Schiavo case.
If I'm not mistaken - it is against the law to withhold water and food from a disabled person.
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.