 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.
That is not true. Modern Conservatism is not simply a rehash of Confederate urges.
I'm no Christian, but even I know living with bitternes in your heart is living in sin.
The federal government is the final protector of indivdual rights and that is its reason for being, period. There is no conflict between conservatism and indivdual rights, noen at all.
Here, here. I've been saying that since last Monday. Once the dirt surfaces, then it will be backlash central for liberals and the media.
I'm a conservative. What happened to States' Rights? I guess we just throw those out and don't even dare to raise the issue when we don't like something?
Ok you've had your cry, now buck up and show us your grit.
You would think that only criminals would have to worry about this. Criminals get better treatment than TS got. TS did nothing wrong. But something is wrong here.
The ones with the "right God" are the ones whose God doesn't tell them to murder innocent people. It's pretty simple, really.
Stop espousing the Constitution, jwalsh. What do you think this is? A Republic? How dare you!
:) Denote sarcasm.
This is a country of LAWS...Spare me from any Theocracy..Taliban or Christian!
Are you pointing to Republican Catholics maybe? Or possibly you think it's just a gang of holyrollers.
Let's get some definition going here so we can know how to respond to you.
There is but One who will rule on earth in that day. His name isn't Mohammed. But on this side of the reign of Christ (now), we live with effects of sin....such as injustice, lack of mercy, and the hardness of mens hearts.
LOL!
Interesting, isn't it, that when I presented an argument based on constitutionalism, annyokie avoided arguing her incoherent claims on their merits, and launched into some spiel about how only kindergarteners are supposed to be civil to one another, etc.
Whenever one of the stareving-Terri-is-cool "federalists" make a claim for the "rule of law" or "federalism" they never back it up with an argument.
If they did, they would be forced to argue that the judiciary should exercise total power over the executive and legislative branches of the government - a preposterous belieing of their original premise.
"Once the dirt surfaces"
Judicial activists will see that it doesn't. They can't afford it.
There is no talking to these people. Law is only good if it's what they agree with. Adjudicated? So what! I don't like it.
Yuk!
What will you say to the Jews, Budhists,etc on this forum?
Don't underestimate the American people. It will be individual Americans that do the dustbusting.
Not to worry, FRiend. There is no way I can take annyokie's rhetoric seriously. Catholics have made up the strongest pro-Life voice I've seen on FR. Thank God for it and them! :-)
Indeed? Where, specifically, does it say that? That it is "immoral to starve helpless people to death"? I'm not talking about recent pronouncements from the Vatican. I'm talking about established Catholic and/or Christian catechism
The rule of law has nothing to do with judicially-sanctioned murder....
Actually, the rule of law has everything to do with judicially sanctioned murder.
This country would not even be an independent nation if our forefathers had adhered to a theoretical rule of law devoid of any moral content.
And this country would not even be an independent nation if our forefathers had adhered to a theocratical rule of law.
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.