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.
Of course, I disagree with this Dems motives and even his evaluation of the acts of Congress, which I think were courageous, even if untimely.
And how many of those judges had the ABA stamp of approval? It goes a lot deeper.
Hmm.... Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton are fundamentalists?
I don't care what party these judges claim.....this is still outrageous. The republican judges in this case, are republican in name only.
I would love to throw out the 9 Supremes and start over. They could have done something which means they were good men who did nothing or bad men just like the bad libs on the court. Either way they should be retire.
Hell, yes. No question.
Evil is evil, no matter the clothing.
This is one cause I'm willing to give money to and time, as well.
And if/when something is started to impeach that Bush in Florida I will give money, to that cause, most especially.
He can't defend an helpless woman: No way should he even think he has what it takes to go any further in his political career.
Let him become a full fledged Democrat: That party is more in sway with his actions, if not his words.
You forgot the BARF ALERT in the title.
"Hmm.... Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton are fundamentalists?"
Good point.
LOL!!!!!
I hope there are many many many Republicans out there like you!
Oh and Ralph Nader, and the Village Voice....
A tyrant is a tyrant, and should be removed regardless of who placed them into power. Abuse is abuse and needs to be redressed.
Republicans who are acting on their conscience are bad. Democrats who sat on their hands are good!
Yep. Put them ALL on the chopping block and warm up the guillotine. Then replace them all with judges who will follow the law. Rinse and repeat as necessary until our courts produce justice.
The salient point is accurate.
If the judiciary is so stinking independent, why then do the Democrats insist that every judge must agree with them on the issues, especially social issues? Filibusters are PROOF POSITIVE that there is no such thing as an independent judiciary any more. When judges make law they become poltiical. It's inevitable.
What I find odd is that most people who are for murdering Terri are against abortion.
However, they will say they have a right to CHOOSE when they die. Well, if you feel that way you had best be quite about abortion, after all it is their CHOICE.
The moderates would do well to remember that the Republicans can not win without us. Us being those radical right-to-lifers.
Just a note. I have no problem with people leaving living wills, or telling their family not to keep them on a feed tube or what-have-you, but there are just too many unanswered questions surrounding Terri that it is best we err on the side of life. I mean, why did her husband wait 7 years to say Terri did not live this way?
You bet we're up to it, let the chips fall where they may. Since when does being a Rupublical exonerate one from wrong-headed decisions?
I think Constitutional law should be a required study for every elected official, to have PASSED the course naturally.
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.