Posted on 03/23/2005 11:57:54 AM PST by Crackingham
The intense fight in the Terri Schiavo case is injecting another explosive element into the coming Senate showdown over President Bush's choices for federal judgeships as well as into future battles to fill Supreme Court vacancies.
The Republican-led effort to circumvent a state court order to disconnect Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, combined with a federal judge's refusal on Tuesday morning to countermand that order, has crystallized issues in the judicial debate in a compelling and singular public way, Republicans and Democrats alike said.
Conservatives, already disdainful of the way judges have handled subjects like same-sex marriage and abortion, say the court treatment of the Schiavo case illustrates a judiciary that is willing to ignore the will of the public and elected officials.
Within a few hours of the decision by Judge James D. Whittemore of Federal District Court in Tampa, who refused to order nutrition restored to Ms. Schiavo, conservatives were expressing their outrage, accusing the judge of giving no deference to the legislation rushed through Congress.
"Judge Whittemore has engaged in a gross abuse of judicial power," said Burke J. Balch of the National Right to Life Committee.
Richard Viguerie, the strategist behind conservative direct mailings, said, "It could be the opening shot in the Supreme Court nomination battle that we expect sooner rather than later."
Mr. Viguerie added, "It is very dramatic proof of what we have been saying: that the judiciary is out of control."
Ken Connor, a social conservative and Florida lawyer who has been central in pressing the case both in Congress and in his home state to keep Ms. Schiavo alive, said, "If the courts allow Terri to die during this interval, I think the courts will suffer badly in the eyes of the public."
Mr. Connor added, "The Republicans in the Senate will simply use this as Exhibit A to highlight their concerns about an imperial judiciary."
To Democrats, the week's maneuvers by Republicans provide mounting evidence of their unwillingness to accept the independence of the courts and demonstrate a headstrong will to change Senate rules to ensure the installment of archconservatives to the federal bench.
"There is no question that Bill Frist is sort of setting a new standard for overreaching," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, referring to the Senate majority leader. "I think there is that whole attitude of the arrogance of power, and that is what is driving this."
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who along with Mr. Kennedy has voted to block some of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees from getting a vote on the Senate floor, said the Schiavo case "shows how important the courts are as a check on the overreaching majority," particularly given that several opinion polls indicate that the public believes Congress overstepped its authority.
Mr. Schumer and Mr. Kennedy say they hope the handling of the Schiavo matter will spark second thoughts among moderate Republican senators who could cast the deciding votes on whether to change Senate rules to prohibit filibusters against judicial candidates. The confrontation could come early next month if Republicans try to force a floor vote on one of the appeals court nominations sent back to the Senate after being blocked by Democrats last year.
We are not supposed to post articles from the NY Times.
Oh, lemme guess. All the Republicans' political capital is being used up on the Schiavo case.
Yippee.
Nuclear option time.
I'd buy that on Pay Per View. I would love to see someone punch Teddy in his big drunken head. Kerry and Clinton...
I wish there could be a bench-clearing brawl!
The Left is so predictable, it is sad. Now we get to it. We see what was truly bothering them and striking fear into their hearts over the Schiavo matter. Congress exercising its Constitutional authority over the Judicial Branch.
Hey Teddy, Hey Schmuckie, bad news for yah. The Courts don't rule this country. They are a co-equal branch of the government. Your last, best hope for enacting your agenda is endangered by a Republican majority that will actually uphold the Constitution. As much as you two would like the Constitution to be de facto amended, it doesn't work that way.
Drunk on power?!!? Well, if upholding the Constitution is drunk on power, poor me a glass.
Oh? Is that a recent policy change?
What is the love affair with the NY Times on here recently -- I am so tired of reading their crap -- if they told me the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and check. How dare they say what Republicans are going to do since they are anti-Republican/conservative to begin with.
Yes, we can; and we can post the entire article. Who knows why?
""Mr. Connor added, "The Republicans in the Senate will simply use this as Exhibit A to highlight their concerns about an imperial judiciary.""
Even the pros are deluded. The screech before the fall.
Quote; "To Democrats, the week's maneuvers by Republicans provide mounting evidence of their unwillingness to accept the independence of the courts and demonstrate a headstrong will to change Senate rules to ensure the installment of archconservatives to the federal bench."
The independence of the Courts. Hmmm, you see how they so subtly slipped that in there. Independence does not mean that the Courts sit above Congress and the President. Yet, the Left has been very artful and effective in establishing the notion that the Courts make the law, enforce the law and interpret the law. Independence. . what about separation of powers? What about the independence of Congress to make policy?
I wonder, how long before the Courts take it upon themselves to establish the foreign policy of the U.S.?
"If the courts allow Terri to die during this interval, I think the courts will suffer badly in the eyes of the public."
I think they already have. This judge ignored the actual facts so that he could come to a conclusion which was not supported by the law. The judiciary in this country is engaged in an unprecedented abuse of power--a power grab. The question of under what circumstances euthanasia will be acceptable in this country is one for the legislature--not the courts.
Hey, if Ted Kennedy wants to embrace forced assisted suicide, I have no serious objections. I just don't want him applying the concept to other people. He's done enough of that already.
Senator Charles E. Schumer said the Schiavo case "shows how important the courts are as a check on the overreaching majority," particularly given that several opinion polls indicate that the public believes Congress overstepped its authority.
A majority of people agree that its important to restrain the actions of a majority of people.
Uh...Because they weren't a party to the LAT/WaPo suit? (/guess)
Whatever happened to words like impeachment, treason, sedition...Has our entire leadership forgotten their civics classes?
You're damn right we are!
Fact:
The People of California overwhelmingly voted against same-sex marriage, yet an activist Judge chose to legislate from the bench & defy the will of The People and allow same-sex marriages in SF.
Are we NOT supposed to be, at the very least, disdainful?
It's the constitution, stupid!
To Democrats, the week's maneuvers by Republicans provide mounting evidence of their unwillingness to accept the independence of the courts and demonstrate a headstrong will to change Senate rules to ensure the installment of archconservatives to the federal bench.
Yes, our majority status entitles us to do just that.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who along with Mr. Kennedy has voted to block some of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees from getting a vote on the Senate floor, said the Schiavo case "shows how important the courts are as a check on the overreaching majority," particularly given that several opinion polls indicate that the public believes Congress overstepped its authority.
Why do you put your faith in historically inaccurate opinion polls that alleged Kerry would win? Schumer needs acquaint himself with our constitution.
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
"Hey Teddy, Hey Schmuckie, bad news for yah. The Courts don't rule this country."
Sorry to say, but this Schiavo thing proves exactly the OPPOSITE. The Courts DO rule this country. And, after watching the cowards in the Executive and Legislative branches do NOTHING MEANINGFUL to stop the outright killing of Terry, the Republicans have shown me that they don't have a hair on their asses. Their so-called "nuclear option" is a bunch of bulls**t.
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.