 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.
Which Just Ruler? Did I miss something here ? What do you say to the Budhists and Jews here? Even the Pope and Mother Theresa didn't have the arrogance some here have. The Pope brought different religions together, trying not to hate each other. Mother Theresa NEVER told anyone they were going to hell if they were not Catholic, or Christian. She said, "You pray to your God and I will sit and pray to my God with you."
Be careful with that one, as you may incur the wrath of those who believe in capital punishment, prohibitions against gay unions/marriage, and a host of other laws either created by the federal government to "protect" individual rights or of the judiciary essentially doing the same thing.
It's okay. It's not like he's singling anyone out. (/sarcasm)
Is it me, or do you notice many on this forum like to "group-insult" so they won't get busted for calling names?
Good post, Nick.
It is true that many people are unaware of the circumstances leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo. Never before have I seen people change their tunes so quickly once they realized the basic facts in this case.
This is an issue that will not go away and will make Christian haters very uncomfortable in the days ahead.
I am very sorry that an innocent young woman had to be starved to death in order to make a point that all life is precious.
That is because many people do not see protecting someone's US Constitutional rights as a state affair.
Do you have further details on this? And a link, maybe?
When this Schiavo thing is over, most of the folks here who want federal laws aimed at individual cases and the President to take over hospices will again revert to the more traditional conservative approach to an ever growing federal umbrella.
Ok, the intolerance has reached epidemic proportions here..guess I'll tune in next time we have an election campaign, that is....unless you only want Christians in the conservative group.
So you miss the days of permanent minority status in both houses of Congress?
Jettison the Religious Right, and you can return to those glorious days of yesteryear (before 1994).
There is but One Ruler over all. And, as He said of Himself - He is the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Him. Sounds like your argument is with Him, not with me.
wow. Was that an intelligent response.ha.
Tell that to the Einsteins who are going to vote Dem because Rick Santorum ticked them off by not endorsing Toomey.
I think there was plenty more going on than activism, like the odd connections between the lawyuh, the judge, the hospice, and the money.
A backlash? One snide editorial by a liberal bigot is a hardly a backlas.
It's not like the Founders were blind to the possibility of local dictatorships popping up. After all, one of the values of a federal system is that combinations of the parts can serve to control the whole, or other parts that are out of whack. At the moment, because of this kind of structure we have one of the most stable, long-lasting governments in history.
Venice holds the record at the moment simply because they started sooner than the US. Their equivalent to our Supreme Court was the Doge (who also served as the National Executive). Their law for getting rid of a bad Doge was a majority vote of the Senate, and then they'd drown him in the Grand Canal.
They only needed to do that once.
I think Tom DeLay has something like that in mind.
Well, you should understand. It seems difficult for you not to insult people.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2276-2279.
Actually, the rule of law has everything to do with judicially sanctioned murder.
Not in the slightest. If one conceives of the "rule of law" in the most primitive way one might say that the rule of law in North Korea is simply whatever the whims of Kim Jong-Il are and that adhering to his whims is simply adhering to the rule of law.
Upon reflection, an intelligent person might say that the rule of law is the application of justice, not the whims of an individual who has managed to accumulate power.
And this country would not even be an independent nation if our forefathers had adhered to a theocratical rule of law.
All law is ultimately theocratic - all law presumes an underlying philosophy whose values are intended to be served by the law.
That philosophy may take a God as its ultimate standard, or it may take the proletariat, or the Aryan race, or self-gratification or some other central organizing principle to which it ascribes a meaning transcending all other concerns.
The rule of law our forefathers established was based upon their philosophical worldview, which ran from strong Christianity to Aristotelian Deism.
In that context, it is immoral to murder helpless people.
Of course, there are other legal systems like Nazism, Communism, the polity of the ancient Ammonites, etc. which eschew any concern for the weak or helpless.
But those points of view are no less absolutist than Christian theocracy.
You are being very insulting to alot of people - that might be why you are being picked on. Give us your opinion, but leave your slurs out of it please.
Are you sure you're not really Terayza Heinz-Kerry?
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.