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.
Poor analysis on Mr. Conason's part. He is assuming that silence is assent, and that is not necessarily the case. He should have done tallies of known opinions -- and those tallies don't show any clear trend. But his writing is tendentious to the point of dishonesty, and rarely (if ever) worth reading.
Quite a crock here. Unless a judge/justice writes his own opinion, or signs a colleague's opinion, you can't read too much into their refusal to take a case. It is just a mistake to do so, even though it is right to be disappointed (or to be tempted to gloat is you are on the other side, pro-death, as Joe C. is.)
I have never been more proud of my FR brethren (and Sistren)
I've always thought that was "Sistern!"
Heard this on Hannity this evening. Regarding this entire situation....
Mel Gibson thinks the last-minute politics is CYA. "Come on. When they want to whip a judge they can whip him in a heart beat. Look at what they did to Judge Roy Moore."
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.
Jefferson had some very dire and accurate warnings re: the judiciary. Sadly we allowed our legislators to give away the freedom the founders gave to us.
What exactly is the sis stern? Is that anywhere near a jib?
Well, if they(the Supremes) are correct to do nothing while starving this poor lady, then we are on different planets. They could have done something since they are the last place these things land. They could have reversed the 11th circuit decision. The 11th circuit needs to be disbanded by Congress but, of course nothing will happen, and Terri will be forgotten. I will never set foot in this Florida county and risk having Joseph M. Greer be the judge of my speeding case or any other case I might have.
Isn't there also a cistern?
Predictable piece from Conason.
Its to difuse the LIBERAL TIME BOMB Nat Hentoff piece posted by dead.
The left is starting to become aware of....
TERRI'S LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
"The salient point is accurate."
Yes, yes it is. As much as I hate to find myself agreeing with Joe Conanson, assuming that what he says (disregarding his sneers and sarcasm, of course)is accurate, this IS very disturbing.
I am planning to go to the March on April 7th, but since our Judiciary is now actively murdering an innocent woman, I'm not so sure I want to go. His point about Pryor is the most disturbing in the article. Maybe I don't want to just break the filibuster, maybe I want to break the Judiciary.
Any and all comments will be appreciated, because I am quite confused and conflicted.
The moves by Congress were not just "courageous"
THEY WERE CONSTITUTIONAL.
Why don't people know that ..??
There are people who are for life, and people who are against life. There is no gray area.
Me, too. Money, time and shoe leather. When I got into local politics here in Texas we held the state convention in a phone booth.
Now a majority the state RINOs are doing stuff that would have caused a conservative a heart attack had it been the dims doing it.
Can you image what the mood would be had this happened during the Clinton administration?
My new tag line is going to be "I didn't leave the republican party, the party left me".
A couple of my own FR tomes presage this view:
Why Judicial Appointments Do NOT Matter (Schiavo)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1371395/posts
OPEN LETTER TO HUGH HEWITT RE: TERRI SCHIAVO and the JUDICIAL OLIGARCHY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368633/posts
... and the congress should also be doing something. i don't care about the dems, they are irrelevant, being the minority. the repubs are in control, what are they waiting for? what are jeb and the POTUS waiting for?
The funny thing is, those who are pro-life in ALL cases (even in cases of rape and incest if one is consistent and sees abortion as murder) and against homosexual marriage, are now seen as far-right fanatics of the Republican party; the "fringe element".
Observing last year's election, the "fringe element" were the ones that rallied the troops and got the word out about Kerry's hypocritical "Catholic" stance on life issues. It was the "fringe element" who were instrumental in getting people to come out and vote against gay marriage. The Republican party should take note and stop taking these people for granted.
Hang Judicial Tyrants of any and I do mean ANY Politcal Party.
Tyrants are tyrants no matter who they belong to.
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.