 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.
I am tired of the Religious Right trying to high-jack the party of Lincoln.
---
It's the Religious Right, as you call it, that is the backbone of the party. If anybody's trying to hijack it, it;s the RINOS and Liberaltarians. It's our party, get with the program or get lost.
I posted this earlier in the thread- but here it is again:
Fascinating.
They may be valid questions, but not directed at me. I don't believe in gay marriage, extraordinary gay rights, or mattress rights. On the other hand, if some state thinks it's ok to marry a mattress, and can somehow get that past it's people, good for that state. No other state should be required to honor that, however.
You folks are attempting to redirect the thrust of the thread, which has nothing to do with mattresses.
Hey, balch. It isn't I that said that. Before you begin your ad hominem attacks, would you please verify who said that. The person is called annyokie. I was simply responding to her statement. So please, by all means, get your facts straight.
And I am the backbone of the party. I am tomorrow's party. If you had any time to check my homepage, you might find that out, balch.
Aha. The usual bait and switch.
It is one thing to be on a respirator. It is another matter entirely to eat food.
Karen Ann Quinlan was being kept alive by extraordinary means - a respiration machine, and it is quite legitimate and common for a person to request that no extraordinary measures be taken.
Mrs. Schindler's testimony has been that Terri would not have wanted to starve to death, and her testimony here is completely consistent with what she has always said.
Your right, I could have named a lot more things but I just wanted to make the point without anyone over reacting to what I am trying to say. I hope you understand.
And also write down: "Matters both immediate and spontaneous should not dictate similar laws."
They have been hearing from their constituents for many years about this topic. By the millions.
And in the future if the Dems have the people, the law and the Constitution on their side they would be right to fight for a change.
But what you are afraid of has already happened-BUT they went in the backdoor and got the Judaical branch. This kind of garbage has been going on for years- it has hit a crescendo over the internet- that is why it is in your face.
OK, the trial takes place in 2000 - 25 years after the newspaper articles about Karen Quinlan. Mrs, Schindler's testimony is discredited because she mistook her daughter's age? Looks like a stretch to me. Is it unlikely for an 11 or twelve year old to formulate such an opinion? I don't think so.
You're the bait and switcher. Mary Schindler said that Terri made her comments at the time of the debate on whether to remove the life support. Terri was 11 or 12 not 17 - 20. Schindler lied and was deemed not credible.
I asked you once, where?
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?
Diva, with all due respect, I haven't a clue why you are asking me these inane questions. They have nothing to do either with the original thrust of the thread or of my agreement that a dichotomy does exist. As I pointed out to another poster, I am firmly against gay marriage period. If a state wants gay marriage, or mattress or goldfish marriages, then if the people of that state agree, fine with me. But from a federal perspective, no other state should honor it.
But that's what they want. They prefer sniping ineffectually than governing according to principles.
That way everything is bad, but none of it is their fault, so they can blame everyone but themselves.
Wow ...
This has been quite the coming-out party for a couple weeks now.
Fascinating, indeed.
When you recall a conversation with the amount of detail that Mrs. Schindler presented it is ridiculous to believe that she could innocently be that far off on the age.
I doubt anybody here would cut Schiavo that much slack.
Sorry, I pulled the quote out of your post. I didn't mean to imply that you said it.
I'm not hostile. I know God is a little sharper than you and me and He doesn't tell us every little bit of his plans.
Everyone who ever drafted a law believes that. Anyway, federal interference was only one of the absurdities of this little circus.
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.