 Cynthia Tucker |
Posted on 04/03/2005 6:42:45 PM PDT by Gondring
Friends of Florida judge George Greer describe him as a low-key conservative Christian, a Republican, a family man, a dog lover. Appellate courts have found over and over again that Greer simply followed the law in deciding a sad and controversial case. But for that sin, the Pinellas County Circuit Court judge was invited out of his Southern Baptist Church.
|
|
Apparently, Greer's critics, including his pastor, didn't like his rulings in the Terri Schiavo case, which landed in his courtroom in 1998. They wanted him to be an activist judge -- a jurist who ignored the law and ruled according to the passions of a group of partisans.
Ultraconservatives want you to believe the term "activist judge" applies to a group of determined liberals whose rulings have overturned historic precedent, undermined morality and defied common sense. But the controversy that erupted around Schiavo, who died on Thursday, ought to remind us once and for all what "activist judge" really means: a jurist whose rulings dissatisfy a right-wing political constituency.
Over the next few months, you'll hear the term "activist judge" often as President Bush nominates justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. The president could end up appointing as many as four. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, is ailing with cancer; John Paul Stevens is also an octogenarian. Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are cancer survivors in their 70s.
With so many likely vacancies, ultraconservatives see an opportunity to drive from the bench any semblance of fealty to the law or the U.S. Constitution. They claim that judges have become the tool of an outlandish liberal fringe that has violated the graves of the Founding Fathers. When right-wing talk-show hosts and U.S. senators denounce judicial activism, they conjure up images of jurists who terrorize the God-fearing, coddle criminals and would -- according to one crazed campaign memo passed around during last year's presidential campaign -- outlaw the Bible.
The next time you hear those claims, think of Judge Greer, whose politics tilt to the right. He is among the targets of ultraconservative ire.
For that matter, think of the current Supreme Court -- hardly a bastion of liberalism. Its justices declined to intervene in the Schiavo case because they could find no legitimate reason to do so.
While the rift between Michael Schiavo and his in-laws, Bob and Mary Schindler, is depressing, family conflict is almost a way of life in America. Courts are called upon often to settle family disputes over money, children and property. Florida law makes clear that a spouse has the right to decide end-of-life issues, and, after testimony from several people, Greer upheld Schiavo's claim that his wife didn't want to be kept alive through artificial means.
It is perfectly understandable that the Schindlers were unhappy with his ruling. As grieving parents, they wanted to believe, contrary to the judgment of several physicians, that their daughter might one day be miraculously restored.
But the attacks on the judiciary by the Schindlers' supporters -- including an attempted end-run by an activist Congress -- made it clear that a minority of religious extremists have no respect for the law and no understanding of the separation of powers on which this government was founded.
Among those who missed their high school civics class, apparently, were Congress and the president. In one of many rulings turning down the Schindlers' request for intervention, an Atlanta federal court judge chastised the executive and legislative branches for overreaching.
"Congress chose to overstep constitutional boundaries into the province of the judiciary. Such an act cannot be countenanced," wrote Judge Stanley Birch, who was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush. Hardly a liberal activist.
The current President Bush has already made clear that his idea of a model chief justice is Clarence Thomas, who has no respect for judicial precedent. But even Thomas might not satisfy the extremists who chastise Judge Greer. They will be satisfied with nothing less than a judiciary steeped in the same narrow religious views they want to impose on the nation.
Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She can be reached by e-mail: cynthia@ajc.com.
No, because personally, I believe they both belong solely in the jurisdiction of the state. But that doesn't wipe away the dichotomy, does it?
Most conservatives have tried desperately to get the federal government out of state affairs...until Terri Schiavo.
Tell that to Randall Terry with his foolish statements about wanting a Theocracy, laws be damned.
I must've missed Cynthia's columns in which she decried every act of judicial activism that resulted in a victory for liberal causes.
Hypocrite.
| The Christers have set back the RTL and other causes for decades.
The "Christers" were out in front on this because they have their own news networks, and they knew things about this case that most of us didn't. Most people still don't know basic facts about this case. Upon colliding with these facts, however, one need hardly be a "Christer" to become alarmed at what happened here. This only looks like a religious crusade. It looks like that because the religious were the first to become alarmed by it. That was because they knew what was happening and the rest of us didn't. It also looks like that because collectively, they are the world's worst PR firm. But don't let that stop you from finding out what really happened here. There are plenty of things about this case that require absolutely no leap of faith to conclude that something really peculiar just went down, and it wasn't right, and it wasn't just, and an innocent woman died over it. I strongly believe that as these facts come out — and they will — the public's view of these events is going to change. After looking into these things as best I can, I believe we just watched the court-powered (probably more accurate to say lawyer-powered) murder of a woman who had become inconvenient to her husband, who wanted to "get on with his life" with another woman. Was the woman really a "human vegetable?" There was a lot of dispute about that. Some doctors said yes, some doctors said no. The curious thing is that the tests which could have answered the question definitively were never done. In fact the husband-guardian prohibited anyone from testing or treating his "wife" as soon as he got his hands on a million-dollar malpractice award. I find the whole thing chilling. |
Someone called her a name on another thread, so she gets carte blanche to insult everyone else! So there! NYAH!
I am not. I am an American citizen. If I don't like the law, I must work to change it. I don't do it by force or fiat.
What's that there stuff you've posted, AP? I'm a might worried. I've never read that before.
:)
Maybe you should take your croissants & brie to another sandbox. Oui?
Perfect!
No, not everybody who wanted to see Terri Schiavo safely in the custody of her parents is a Ward Chrchill nutcase. Funny, you didn't ask for examples, just made some very bad assumptions.
Can't we use the term, pigwash? Isn't it a bit insenstive to use the term hogwash?
:) Hehe!
Personally, I look forward to the theocracy to come. It's not something I fear. In that day, perfect justice will always be done, as opposed to the imperfect justice we now live with.
Someone is always calling me a name on here since I won't walk in lock-step.
Apparently, dissenting opinions are not welcome on FR any longer. It's no longer a discussion board, but an amen corner.
What I said.
Those who supported murdering Terri say: "Well, I may or may not believe in starving Terri Schiavo to death, but if the government says it's OK, it's OK. Oh and by the way, those of you who disagree with the government-sanctioned murder of Terri are actually foes of limited government."
The first position is moral and internally consistent.
The second statement is amoral, in the purest sense of the term, and full of logical holes one could steer an aircraft carrier through. It is also fundamentally dishonest.
GAD! What if it isn't Jesus by Mohammed? Is that okay with you? Who has the "right" god?
It's not what Cynthia thinks hip-shooter. It's what America thinks. I'm a solid evangelical Christian and I think the religious right is full of it.
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.
I don't think so. Certain elements in the media are dancing with glee just now because they have instant polls telling them that their spin on these events worked on the public. But I don't believe it will stick.