 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.
Remember, they hated Him first.
Can't you post without the Christian slurs?
They're making me sick to my stomach.
And I believe the word "Bible" is capitalized.
And I think you aren't really a Christian.
Lincoln was a Godly man. He had great faith.
If it weren't for the religious right holding back evil, you'd have a liberal 666 carved into your forehead by now.
If you aren't being hostile, I'd hate to run across you when you are.
What in the ---- does gay marriage have to do with this topic?! This EXACTLY what I have been griping about this forum. Stick to the subject or haul it off to chat or FRmaqil.
If we have special laws for homosexuals then someone will decide we need to have special rights for them as well. As nutso as the left as gotten I have no doubt that someone will come up with the idea of marrying a couch or a goldfish and pushing for special rights. That is what they do-push the envelope until nothing is the same.
SO while I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, I do not support special laws for them.
I , personally wish there was a way they could marry -so they could just be happy. But they would have to change the law. So I have to go with not changing the law.
I agree...she has a right to her belief. That's fine. I reacted to the "damnation" response I got...that doesn't feel real tolerant. There is a difference between stating what I believe and telling you, you're wrong and going to hell if you don't believe as I do and as an American, I better believe what you do.
There is no such thing as the religious right. It's a term used to try and separate conservatives. 99% of conservatives believe in God or have some religious affiliation, therefore making us all religious right if one is to believe the media label.
It's all just smoke and mirrors.
Whoops, there I go again.....being a bibler! I know it's offensive, but I just have to ask myself, do I go with what the world says, or with what God has said. He wins everytime....because He's lot sharper than you and me!
Don't get cute. What if you where a Torah or a Qu'uraner? Would you still be laughing up your sleeve?
What a weak argument.
The Quinlan case began in 1975, but it reemerged in national news when Miss Quinlan died in 1985.
Terri was 12 when the case came to national prominence and 22 when it reentered the national news.
Michael Schiavo's attorneys did the usual thing and did their best to confuse a distraught mother with a flurry of dates and details.
Michael Schiavo, well-advised, kept his comments intentionally vague both in reference to time frame and to details. He said "we would be watching shows" and refused to give further details because he correctly feared being caught in a similar trap, whereby the Schindler's attorneys might point out that movie to which he referred was not shown on TV in the timeframe he mentioned, etc.
The quoted comment from Mrs. Schindler is not obviously a lie, it does not in any way contradict her current position on Terri's wishes and it is no more inherently believable or unbelievable that Michael Schiavo's comments.
Citation on that 99% ? There are atheist freepers and conservatives who would call your bluff.
PSt- annyokie all you have to do is trace the posts back and forth if you are confused. And here I thought you were saying other people were rude, demanding and intolerant of your posts. Interesting, no?
Be careful there is a mirror in your house somewhere I'm sure.
I agree. Thank you for your rational response. All this talk about mattresses is getting kinda kinky, don't you think?
If you guys had the chance to hold me down and carve me, I'd have to agree.
The dirty little secret is that this is a case about government power. Those who wish to increase the amount of power of government (in all its forms) or the people who have been duped into supporting the expansion of government power under the guise of "protecting states' rights." Let me explain.
This is only the second case in American history where a judge ordered that a woman's feeding tube MUST be removed (this statement comes from CNN, hardly a Terri supporter!). It is also the first time in American history that a judge order NO food or water can be administered to a person, in any form. Think about that. The judge not only ordered the feeding tube removed (which Florida law, conveniently changed by Felos and company in the midst of the trials, stupidly labels as "extraordinary measures"), he ordered that Terri could not be fed in any manner, including orally. Let me say that again; a state judge (a member of the government) ordered that a person could not be fed in any manner! This is not "letting nature take it's course." This is judical execution.
Now, as far as Mrs. Schiavo is concerned, her wishes could be very quickly ascertained. Once the feeding tube was removed, if she were to refuse food orally, or were she unable to swallow it, you could legitimately say that she died due to her condition. But the judge's order precluded even that choice! She was killed by an agent of the government. Period.
So, when you ask why this is important, I will tell you. When a terminal patient dies after "extraordinary measures" are removed from supporting him, you can make a case that he died naturally. But in Terri Schiavo's case, you cannot say she died naturally, as she was restricted from any source of sustinence, even if she was willing and able to consume it. To support Greer, you must believe that a state court has the authority to order the death of a person convicted of no crime. You must agree that the court has the authority to order you starved, even if you have the capacity to eat. You must agree that the court has the authority to decide that you swallowing food is an activity that the court can legally control.
There is no more radical expansion of government power than what Judge Greer has just performed. He has now established that the government has the legal power (were the appropriate laws passed in the legistlature, and maybe even without them) to restrict you from eating until you die, based on nothing other than it's order. How is that not the largest expansion of government power since the reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause?
That's why I left it at one percent. The atheists and those calling my bluff certainly wouldn't be more than one percent of all conservatives.
The age of Terri Schindler would not have any bearing on the words she used to describe her feeling towards Karen Quinlan.
If an 11-12 year old could conceive of such an opinion, why would Mrs. Schindler "flat out lie" (to use your words) about her age when she said these things?
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.