 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.
Nor do I. But if those rights already existed, why the rush to create new federal laws for a single person?
Sorry, the only intolerance I've seen so far is on your side of the debate. It's this business about shutting up the Christians lest they say something that might offend you. That's raw, pure, unadulterated intolerance of the first order if I've ever heard it.
"why is that?"
I have a feeling it is because of the rather mysterious circumstances of what may have put her in that position to start with, the fact that right after the malpractice settlement, Michael stopped all rehabilitative measures and the fact that while Terris parents said they were willing to take care of her, michael claimed marital superiority in the decision making even though he effectively has another wife and children with her.
How about ZERO!
Her condition was different. The issue is not at all about pulling plugs, in fact, her's had been pulled 15 years earlier!
I couldn't care less, and that has nothing to do with my response. anyway.
You despise the Religious Right? Fine. Without the Religious Right, you may as well be a member of the Whig party.
Please, name for me one Arabic speaking theocracy ~
You missed a few questions, like how many of them have had their care neglected for years by their "guardians", and how many have had their guardians prohibit even attempts to give them food or water by mouth, and even go so far as to get court orders to enforce those prohibitions.
I don't mean to prejudge the answer. Maybe there are quite a few such cases. Hopefully this late sordid episode will shed some light on some of them.
Besides an American Citizen,who committed no crime, was stripped of her US Constitutional rights and they had a responsibility to try and stop it.
Aside from a couple of states, where?
Why should they have more and different rights than anyone else.
I don't know, why?
And what happens when someone wants to marry their couch? Should they have special rights to do so?
Huh?
I thought the issue was that Greer was following Florida law to the letter, and that was upsetting folks.
There is no need to "rework" any logic.
One, Michael Schiavo's vague references to supposed past conversations are not hard evidence.
Two, if you handed me a gun and said "I don't want to live anymore, please kill me" and I foolishly followed your wishes, I would be rightly arrested for murder.
And if I said "But he told me to. It's what he wanted" the arresting officers would laugh their tails off.
No evidence was presented that implied murder.
A woman was methodically starved to death. It happened. It was murder. No need to imply anything.
Much evidence was considered regarding Terri's wishes, however.
Other than vague yet convenient recollections , no evidence of any kind was adduced. Certainly nothing in writing.
Mrs. Schindler was caught flat out lying to the court regarding statements Terri made.
Hardly. She simply dared to contradict Michael Schiavo's account of events.
No wonder the judge believed Schiavo.
There is no wonder - because Mrs. Schindler made the fatal mistake of hiring attorneys who were not lifetime members of the "Re-elect Judge Greer" society.
MACV, those are all valid questions ~ I'd particularly like to know about what our take should be when a member of the Church of St. Mattress wants to marry his couch.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/28/conflicting_memories_about_schiavos_wishes_1111989646?pg=2
...when the Schiavo case reached a Florida courtroom in 2000, Mary Schindler made a different argument.
According to court records and media accounts, Schindler said her daughter's views became clear while the two watched a television program on a comatose 22-year-old, Karen Ann Quinlan. After ingesting alcohol and tranquilizers at a party, Quinlan collapsed and entered a vegetative state, kept alive by a respirator, which some in her family wanted removed, prompting a national debate on the right to die.
''Just leave her alone. Leave her. If they take her off, she might die. Just leave her alone and she will die whenever," said Terri Schiavo, according to Schindler's testimony.
Schindler said her daughter was 17 to 20 when she made the comments, according to court papers. But after she was shown newspaper articles on the Quinlan case, which began in 1975, she changed her mind. Terri Schiavo, on Dec. 3, 1963, was 11 or 12 at the time.
Well, THIS Buddhist thinks she has the right to believe how she wants.
THIS Buddhist is tolerant of others' beliefs. Actually, most Buddhists are.
(Pssst, we're pro-life, too.)
What happens when someone wants to marry their goldfish-couldn't someone say they deserve the same rights as anyone else? Should we have a law that they can so they can get the special tax breaks which come with marriage?
The ACLU would argue -YES!
Problem you have though is the next time a Democrat congress sees a miscarriage of justice somewhere in some state...well, you get the idea. It's ok as long as they do it for an issue with which I agree, but hands off if I don't agree with the particular miscarriage of justice.
Not quite see Post #195.
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.