Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservative judge blasts Bush, Congress for role in Schiavo case
Knight Ridder ^ | 3/30/05 | Stephen Henderson

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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 11thcircuit; aclj; judge; judgebirch; schiavo; stanleybirch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-252 next last
To: Crackingham
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.

Assuming it's not out of context, I'd impeach his ass for this one statement.

Go to hell, Birch.

81 posted on 03/30/2005 6:30:19 PM PST by Psycho_Bunny (“I know a great deal about the Middle East because I’ve been raising Arabian horses" Patrick Swazey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
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."

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

82 posted on 03/30/2005 6:33:12 PM PST by Prince Charles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

Please explain the meaning of section one and five of the 14th amendment then.


83 posted on 03/30/2005 6:33:38 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Maybe we should consult Hitlery and Booba how to break the law and get away with it? (sarcasm)


84 posted on 03/30/2005 6:35:20 PM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Thanks for posting the dissenting views.
85 posted on 03/30/2005 6:36:35 PM PST by perfect stranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

>>>Birch said he couldn't countenance Congress' attempt to "rob" federal courts of the discretion they're given in the Constitution.>>>

In other words: HOW DARE YOU QUESTION OUR AUTHORITY!!!


86 posted on 03/30/2005 6:37:39 PM PST by sandbar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
Constitutionally Correct!

Precisely my point of view.

It is amazing to watch our so called limited Government, follow the Constitution, lower taxes, "get out of my bedroom" conservatives making fools of themselves by demanding Federal and State Government intervention in an affair who should have been left to the State of Florida to decide.

When the Democrats (Janet Reno comes to mind) are usurping the law/Constitution we were all up in arms demanding the rule of Law to be observed.

Now that we are in charge, everything is just a OK to do just that, usurping the Law/Constitution because we do not like it!

I can not believe this blatant hypocrisy in the ranks of my Party!

Am, I alone thinking like this????

87 posted on 03/30/2005 6:37:48 PM PST by danmar ("No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." Karl Hess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hattie
How can anyone respect these people?

Bump for truth

88 posted on 03/30/2005 6:37:51 PM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I read the ruling -- conservative ruling on the law and the judge sounded disgusted IMO. I thought it was very well written and once again citing case law to back up what he was saying.

I don't want activists judges -- I want judges that rule on the law -- isn't that a novel thought? But then I thought that was a conservative agenda until recently.


89 posted on 03/30/2005 6:37:58 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Increase Republicans in Congress in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: danmar

No you are not alone -- count me in!


90 posted on 03/30/2005 6:39:22 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Increase Republicans in Congress in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

Comment #91 Removed by Moderator

To: Richard Kimball
There is no law.

Somehow, someway our American legal system has found a way to ignore the moral law upon which it was supposed to have for a foundation, and has become corrupt in the process.
92 posted on 03/30/2005 6:40:17 PM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

>>>In this instance the Congress took it upon themselves to attempt to over rule a Judicial decision they shouldnt have.>>>

Yes, because judges are ALWAYS right.


93 posted on 03/30/2005 6:40:33 PM PST by sandbar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: danmar
"Am, I alone thinking like this????"

Nope...and as soon as the feeding frenzy here is over I think you will find more people who understand our point of view...

94 posted on 03/30/2005 6:40:34 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Who Dares Wins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Prince Charles

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"....things like me.


95 posted on 03/30/2005 6:40:55 PM PST by traderrob6 (http://www.exposingtheleft.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

>>> Along the way he seems to have forgotten that the Founding Fathers actually did give Congress that power!>>>

Pretty much for the reasons involved in this Teri Schiavo case alone!


96 posted on 03/30/2005 6:42:00 PM PST by sandbar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gwbiny2k
I am as conservative as they come, and I agree with the judge. The president and congress has no business getting involved in individual cases.

Well that makes at least two of you who are "conservatives" and sh5t from shinola challenged.

The only question remaining is do you also suffer from the same malady as judges, that being megalomania?

97 posted on 03/30/2005 6:42:40 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
It doesn't say the state can't deprive any person of life, just without due process of law.

You are right on target. Due process has obviously been followed, as the numerous reviews up and down the state and federal judiciaries clearly show.

98 posted on 03/30/2005 6:43:13 PM PST by aQ_code_initiate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Judge Bork said the other day that the Courts would never be able to keep up with looking at individual cases one after the other -- way too many of them. Said this case is not unique and the judges needed to rule on the law not emotions. Wish some people on here could have heard him but then they would have had to open their ears so they could hear.


99 posted on 03/30/2005 6:43:35 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Increase Republicans in Congress in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

Why not?

Since we're tossing conservatives overboard for the likes of Jesse Jackson and Lanny Davis, anything goes.


100 posted on 03/30/2005 6:44:45 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-252 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson