Posted on 03/30/2005 5:22:03 PM PST by Crackingham
The latest rejection of the Terri Schiavo case by a federal court was accompanied by a stinging rebuke of Congress and President Bush from a seemingly unlikely source: Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., one of the most conservative jurists on the federal bench.
Birch authored opinions upholding Alabama's right to ban the sale of sex toys and Florida's ability to prohibit adoptions by gay couples. Both rulings drew the ire of liberal activists and the elation of traditional and social conservatives.
Yet, in Wednesday's 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to deny a rehearing to Schiavo's parents, Birch went out of his way to castigate Bush and congressional Republicans for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for governance of a free people - our Constitution."
Birch said he couldn't countenance Congress' attempt to "rob" federal courts of the discretion they're given in the Constitution. Noting that it had become popular among "some members of society, including some members of Congress," to denounce "activist judges," or those who substitute their personal opinions for constitutional imperatives, Birch said lawmakers embarked on their own form of unconstitutional activism.
"This is a judge who, through a political or policy lens, falls pretty squarely in the Scalia/Thomas camp," said law professor and constitutional expert David Garrow, referring to the two most conservative Supreme Court justices. "I think it's a sad commentary that there wasn't a voice like his present in the Congress, because he's saying what a Republican constitutional conservative should be saying."
Jay Sekulow, the chief legal counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said Birch got it wrong, while two other judges - including one appointed by Bill Clinton - were right to say they'd accept the Schiavo case.
"I think this whole case is redefining ideological positions," said Sekulow, whose organization has been consulting with lawyers for Schiavo's parents. "I would think an originalist view of the Constitution would come out differently than what Birch says." Originalists try to adhere to the precise language and intent of the Constitution.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino declined to address Birch's decision directly, saying the president is "saddened by this extraordinary case and continues to support all those who stand up to defend life."
Birch's criticisms highlight the legal conundrum that surrounds the Schiavo case and point to the difficulty it continues to present for some Republicans. Congressional leaders may have believed that they were playing to the party's socially conservative wing by taking extraordinary steps to have the federal government intervene. But traditional conservatives have decried their abandonment of the party's adherence to limited government, states' rights and separation of powers.
Additionally, in order for Schiavo's parents to win in federal court, judges would have to embrace a doctrine of constitutional due process that conservatives have decried. Such "substantive" due process, which Justice Antonin Scalia sharply criticized in a recent speech as part of the threat that will "destroy the Constitution."
And she's dead!
When an American citizen who has committed no crime against the state can be sentenced to death by the state, we no longer live in a free republic. I don't care what any of the judges think, this is what has happened. She has had no attorney and no jury. Sentenced to death by one judge and the state, approved by the federal courts.
U.S. Constitution Article III:
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. ....
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, ....
U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
* * *
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The Schiavo case certainly involves the question of whether Florida's enforcement of its law is abridging her rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment expressly authorizes Congress, by appropriate legislation, to enforce the amendment. Birch should get his head out of his a**.
conservative is good, at least with conservative we get judicial restraint....but conservative does not neccessarily = competent. These people thumbed their collective noses at the elected body of this country, congress....and that is intolerable from a conservative a liberal or anything in between.
I'm tired of hating Michael Schiavo... I think his lack of compasion is mind numbing. But the avalanche of Constitutional, legal, congressional, and judicial infomation and debate is enlightening.
That said, I just wish Michael had got a divorce years ago and walked away, returning Terry to her family. What a freakin' cad!
Poppycock. Our imperial judiciary is having a hissy fit because the Congress or the President might dare say "boo"? I guess that explains the disdainful treatment that S.686 received from Whittemore and most of the 11th.
Separation of powers?
Yeah right, these stinking judges are saying the constitution gives them ALL the power and the legislative and executive NONE.
That's their version of separation of(from) power.
If the constitution provides for 3 co-equal branches of government--a paper, scissors, rock type of analogy--the courts have said the judicial branch is rock,rock,rock. The courts have gone from deciding what the law says to creating the law (legislative), enforcing the law (executive), and defying the other two branches to do anything about it. And when the executive or legislative tries anything the courts scream "King's X!! King's X!! You can't do that....Neener, Neener, Neener"
Another way of saying it is the courts have become judge, jury and executioner.
"If you want the federal courts to review every single one of these end-of-life situations, we're gonna have to have A LOT more judges."
Congress and the President addressing America's health care issues one citizen at a time?
Agreed. I'm not passing judgment without reading the opinion, which I haven't done yet.
But you are exactly right - legislatures all over this country exercise their power to define evidentiary and legal standards for the courts to apply as they are written.
Besides, nothing in the new law passed by Congress "robbed" the federal courts of any discretion whatsoever. The law as passed in fact made de novo review itself discretionary, because a few democrat politicians insisted that the word "may" be used instead of "shall".
I have no doubt whatsoever that Congress acted well within its powers.
Sad that as the courts passed the buck they appear now to be lashing out. Need to read the opinion first before drawing any conclusions.
That reminded me of another infamous quote:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."--[EX]President William Jefferson Clinton, USA TODAY 11 Mar 93
2) a case in which a judge has ordered the death of a patient by starvation; and
I think a lot of those people just sense that there may be some Constitutional issues in the case that deserve some serious consideration.
this was not a law statement this was a turf statement.
Black Robe Fever strikes again.
I'm codswalloped that conservatives would stand for this. But, that's where we're headed.
When judges are allowed to ignore elected officials, the Congress and in this case the President, there is a serious underlining problem in this nation which is being brought to light.
The divisions over the right to life for the disabled are being clearly drawn.
"Jay Sekulow, the chief legal counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said Birch got it wrong, while two other judges - including one appointed by Bill Clinton - were right to say they'd accept the Schiavo case."
While not agreeing with your sentiment here, I admit that is funny, I don't care who you are.
If everything the courts do is right how come they keep coming up with the wrong answer ?
The 14th Amendment (which you quoted) continues with the following:
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
What then is the meaning of section 1 and 5 of the 14th amendment?
Long time since I studied History but I believe our founding Fathers had seen this same power takeover by judges in England. As a result they made three equal parts of government but actually the weakest branch was to be the judiciary because of this very type of power grab. Now they have overstepped the line.
Yesterday the Supremes refused to intercede ID case. Now your 12yo daughters can have an abortion without any parental consent. How can anyone respect these people?
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.