"At that point no president subject to the Constitution had any authority to prevent the obscenity being perpetrated by Michael Schiavo with the enthusiastic backing of Judge George Greer and his judicial cronies. George Bush had run out of options."
So some keep asserting. Show me the provision in either constitution, U.S. or Florida, which allows the courts to nullify acts of the other two branches or denies the executive the same separate and equal authority? You can't find them because they do not exist.
The solution to the tyranny of the JUDICIAL OLIGARCHS is to get candidates in Republican executive branch primaries to promise to do what Jeb Bush refused to do - to use the constitutional power the executive holds equal to the other two branches to NULLIFY unconstitutional laws and judicial decisions by not enforcing or countermanding them. EXECUTIVE NULLIFICATION, practiced by Presidents Jefferson and Jackson, has atrophied from disuse since the early days of the republic. The trend was set by enforcement of the widely unpopular in the north Dred Scot decision (1857) by a northern Democrat president (Buchanan) who was friendly to slavery which led to civil war. Plessy and the busing cases after Brown were equally unconstitutional as was removing prayer from schools, but we all had to bow and scrape because we have been led to believe the courts were the final word, no matter how wrong and unjust.
We should not fear that Democrat presidents and governors would do the same. Errors by chief executives are only until the next election. Errors by the Supreme Court are for the lives of the justices and often beyond through stare decisis and the interest of members of the courts, regardless of by whom appointed, to conserve and accrue their own power.
It is interesting to note that when Judge Greer enlisted the willing assistance of the Pinellas County Sheriff's executive police power for enforcement of his concentration camp which Governor Bush used as and excuse for not acting because of a possible armed conflict that Governor Bush had the Florida constitutional power to resolve the dispute in his favor by suspending and replacing both the sheriff and Judge Greer for interfering with the lawful duties of the Department of Children and Families but he did not use it.
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE VIII - County Government
Section 1
(d) COUNTY OFFICERS. There shall be elected by the electors of each county, for terms of four years, a sheriff, a tax collector, a property appraiser, a supervisor of elections, and a clerk of the circuit court;
ARTICLE IV - Executive
SECTION 7. Suspensions; filling office during suspensions.--
(a) By executive order stating the grounds and filed with the custodian of state records, the governor may suspend from office any state officer not subject to impeachment, any officer of the militia not in the active service of the United States, or any county officer, for malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony, and may fill the office by appointment for the period of suspension. The suspended officer may at any time before removal be reinstated by the governor.
ARTICLE III - Legislative
SECTION 17. Impeachment.--
(a) The governor, lieutenant governor, members of the cabinet, justices of the supreme court, judges of district courts of appeal, judges of circuit courts, and judges of county courts shall be liable to impeachment for misdemeanor in office.
====
Three threads (mine) that should come to everyone's attention are these:
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
SCHIAVO v. SCHIAVO - "Conservative" Judge Birch Proclaims JUDICIAL OLIGARCHY (full opinion)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1374897/posts
A point which I drew from this last one is in my comment after the judge's opinion:
Judge Birch fails to appreciate when he states, "An act of Congress violates separation of powers if it requires federal courts to exercise their Article III power “in a manner repugnant to the text, structure, and traditions of Article III."[" - ] that that necessarily implies that Congress and the President are likewise not bound by decisions of the courts that conflict or usurp their Article I and II powers or are repugnant to the plain language of other parts of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and enforce. It is more evidence that judicial appointments of the "right temperament" will not curb the excesses of the courts as the position of all-powerful judge seems to corrupt absolutely in the absence of will and true independent action of the other supposedly separate and equal branches.
"Errors by chief executives are only until the next election"
So this justifies it to you?
BANG! (the sound of hitting the nail on the head)