Posted on 03/30/2005 2:46:06 PM PST by grassboots.org
If Terri Schiavo finally perishes over the Easter weekend, the roar of fundamentalist rage will sound like the dawn of Armageddon.
Televised preachers will blame her demise on the Democratic politicians who did almost nothing to oppose the political intervention in her case. Right-wing pundits will denounce the tyranny of “judicial activists,” an “elitist judicial oligarchy” or just plain “liberal judges.” Republican politicians will urge that she be avenged by sweeping away the constitutional protection of the filibuster, so that the president can pack the federal courts with extremists and theocrats.
In a Weekly Standard essay titled “Runaway Judiciary,” Hugh Hewitt promoted that opportunistic theme. Hewitt predicted confidently that public fury over the Schiavo case will increase support for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s plan “to break the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees and … a backlash against any Republican who sides with the Democrats on the coming rules change vote.”
While exploiting Schiavo’s tragedy for maximum impact, these opportunists probably won’t dwell on the most salient political fact about those awful judges who have ruled so consistently in favor of Schiavo’s husband and against her parents. Most of those tyrannical jurists happen to be Republicans, too.
When the Supreme Court issued what should be the final decision in the Schiavo matter on Thursday, its nine members again unanimously rejected the parents’ plea for another review. The court’s decision, issued through Justice Anthony Kennedy, scarcely went beyond the succinctly negative “denied.” None of the court’s self-styled “originalist” thinkers issued a peep of dissent, although this was their fifth opportunity to do so.
Antonin Scalia, who has come closest to articulating an openly theocratic approach to jurisprudence, indicated no objection to the majority position. Neither did Clarence Thomas, whose views closely mirror those of Scalia. Their silence suggests the radicalism of the congressional departure from constitutional norms that was embodied in the “Schiavo law” passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. By turning away the Schindlers’ appeal, the Republican justices were simply endorsing the findings of their colleagues in the lower courts.
On cable television and on the Internet much has been made of the fact that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore — who issued last week’s initial federal ruling in favor of Michael Schiavo — is a “Clinton appointee.” By emphasizing that connection, as if the former president himself were deciding Terri Schiavo’s fate, the cable loudmouths were pandering to the old Satanic caricatures of the Clintons that still excite the ultra-right.
When the Schindlers appealed Whittemore’s decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, a three-judge panel rejected their plea for a stay. Of the two judges who ruled against the Schindlers, Ed Carnes is a conservative Republican appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, and Frank Hull is a moderate Democrat appointed by Clinton. The dissenting judge, who supported the Schindlers’ plea, was Charles Wilson — another Clinton appointee.
That nonpartisan pattern became even clearer when the full 11th Circuit upheld that panel’s ruling. Of the appeals court’s 12 active judges, only two dissented. One was the aforementioned Wilson; the other was Judge Gerald Tjofelt, a Republican appointed in 1975 by President Ford. The remainder, who evidently concurred with that Clintonite elitist Whittemore, included six Republicans: Reagan appointee and Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson; George H.W. Bush appointees Carnes, Stanley Birch, Joel Dubina, Susan Black; and, most ironically, William Pryor Jr., who was given a recess appointment by George W. Bush two years ago in the midst of controversy and filibuster by Democratic senators.
Pryor is the perfect example of the kind of appointee whose extreme views provoke the strongest liberal and Democratic opposition — and whom the Republicans are determined to elevate by breaking the filibuster. He is a vehement opponent of abortion, an advocate of criminalizing homosexuality and a consistent supporter of theocratic efforts to breach the wall separating church and state. Although the competition is fierce, he is probably the most right-wing nominee chosen by President Bush.
Whatever Pryor may believe about the Schiavo case, he affirmed the silence of his fellow Republicans with his own. Like the views of Scalia and Thomas and most of Pryor’s Republican colleagues on the 11th Circuit, his opinion remains unexpressed.
Despite all the apocalyptic posturing of the far right on the cable channels, weblogs and editorial pages, the Schiavo case is a matter of individual conscience and adherence to law. Although the weight of scientific evidence supports Michael Schiavo’s position, Democrats and Republicans alike have acknowledged how troubling and difficult they find this issue.
Meanwhile, national polls show that the public disdains the hysterical posturing of the Republican leadership in Congress and the White House. Ultimately the Schiavo case may well change the debate over the filibuster, though not as imagined by the likes of Hugh Hewitt, if only because Senate Democrats finally muster the courage and determination to defend the Constitution and an independent judiciary.
Yes, it does not matter who they vote for or who affiliate themselves with. If they are incompetent, and or overstep their constitutional bounds, remove them.
I truly appreciate imagining that in a literal sense..
Hope it'll happen on a figurative level, although unfortunately that process will be a lot more complex..
This isn't just a "liberal judge" or "activist judge" problem....this is an OVERPOWERFUL judge problem. We need to rein in the powers of the judiciary, no matter if they are left or right.
Remember, the law that permitted this to happen in the first place as passed by the Florida legislature. That law should have been addressed by SCOFLA, but we all know what moral reprobates they are.
If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the people of Florida who voted these people in, and the ones who continue to ratify the judges each and every election.
It's called RINO hunting, and I'm for it.
I hate when we give them ammunition to be used against us. His motives stink, but he's right about the facts.
Did Jim Rob appoint you Minister of Ideological Purtiy??? If not, shut up!!!
If there wasn't disagreement and debate here, we'd be DU.
Don't you know with many out there, the redeeming factor can be established by a simple (R) discovered after the offender's name?
Better get out the asbestos underwear, get ready for a flaming the likes you've never seen.
Since you joined in July, they can't call you a "newbie", or "disruptor", but they might accuse people who post such interesting articles of being a closet D.U.'er.
Of course, those less mentally-challenged and intellectually open shall debate and discuss the article on it's own merits--and there are some liberal drifts in it that are wrong. Nevertheless, the challenge is now to the Republicans. Will they indulge in quality control against the PLINOs in their midst, or will all of it be simply directed towards "the Deathocrats"?
My tagline says the rest of my sentiments here. I am very disappointed but not surprised by what the Democrats by and large did--I would expect as much from card carrying members of the Culture of Death. But, I am even more upset with those in my own Party and of those I thought to share similiar conservative sentiments, who did not do the maximum and take said action(s), or otherwise ran for cover. There are some of those around, too.
Frankly I'd not want "our guys" there under the current imbalance, they might (and many Republican appointments have turned out different than what was expected) write new laws, etc. just like liberals.
Go back to the founders. The judiciary was to be the "weak sister" branch with the executive branch holding the sword and the legislative branch holding the purse strings.
It certainly hasn't always been like this; it's said that when Andrew Jackson was told of a SCOTUS decision he replied "Fine, let them enforce it". The republic survived.
Impeachment is far too slow and tedious. I would suggest (and there is controversy if this can be done) that funding for the judiciary be cut to the bone. Let them sit home and do crossword puzzles for a year. Think they'd notice? You bet. Money talks.
There is also article III, section 2 (I think, that's from memory) that allows Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. There was legislation doing just that last year. It never got out of committee.
We need to get back to legislators writing laws and getting fired when we don't like them. Right now they can easily blame judges, we eat it up like raw meat and they get re-elected "since it's not their fault" and "we need more conservative judges".
We need Congress and the President to do their constitution duty. It won't be easy, it's been 60-70 years and they are timid but we must hold their feet to the fire on this.
This POS doesn't see any further than the dem-pubby standoff ... judicial activism and a tyrannical judiciary must be addressed and solved, regardless of whom posted the tyrants to their jobs. Suck a rotten egg, Joe, you slobbering democrap twit.
They thwarted the clear text of the law and also the obvious legislative intent of the law, to give Terri a new factual hearing in federal court.
So, yes, I will criticize them, in fact, I am disgusted by them. They ignored the law.
Yep. A barf alert was definitely needed in the title.
"Ok Republicans are we up to the task of criticizing our own judicial appointees and impeach them like we are threatening to do with the Democrats?"
If they are not adhering to the Constitution and holding to their Oath of office, not just yes, HELL YES!!!
It appears per Conason's contention, that the "GOP" judiciary is independent, so Conason and the country don't have anything to worry about. Conason's stupid article is at war with itself. The guy also appears to not know much about the law, and in particular legal procedure. Maybe the guy is good at writing about some things, but this ain't one of them.
It is interesting to note that the ENTIRE TONE of his "arguement" (that republicans should be complaining about their "own" judges - accepts as a fundemental fact that "democrat-appointed judges" ARE PREJUDICED and DO RULE according to their politcal bent.
Gee.
And the left wonders why Senate obstruction of judges is the most important task the democrats have - all to preserve Roe vs Wade?
Unlike the Left Wing Judges, the Republican Judges have decided not to invent laws.
It doesn't mean they don't pray for her, feel awful about what's happening, etc. But there is very little they can do with no laws to back up their opinions.
"This isn't just a "liberal judge" or "activist judge" problem....this is an OVERPOWERFUL judge problem. We need to rein in the powers of the judiciary, no matter if they are left or right."
You nailed it. The judiciary absolutely must be reined in if the nation is to continue in freedom and justice.
"Go back to the founders. The judiciary was to be the "weak sister" branch with the executive branch holding the sword and the legislative branch holding the purse strings."
We have come very far from this..
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.