Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS SEEK THEIR OWN 'ACTIVIST' JUDGES
Yahoo! News (April 3, 2005) ^ | Sat Apr 2, 8:25 PM ET | 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.

Cynthia Tucker
Cynthia Tucker

 

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: cary; hysterria; judicialactivism; liberalnutcase; religiousbigot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 581-598 next last
To: MACVSOG68
But what I am trying to point out to you is the interference was the responsibility of our Federal Representatives.
241 posted on 04/03/2005 8:24:43 PM PDT by Diva Betsy Ross (Code pink stinks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie

They are entitled to their beliefs, even if they think I'm going to hell. I don't care. I don't get "hurt" or insulted by others' relgious beliefs.

Their beliefs may not be tolerant, but it's your choice to be intolerant.


242 posted on 04/03/2005 8:25:12 PM PDT by stands2reason (When in doubt, err on the side of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

I read the Bible. I think he is using the "bibler" term as a way some Christians flaunt the bible for personal or political gain or use scripture in lieu of discussion. I don't like that either.


243 posted on 04/03/2005 8:25:38 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Conservative & Rational..what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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.

And I would add the state government as well. What's interesting to me is that as a pro-life libertarian I find my support of the governements protection of TS and anyone unable to defend their rights completely consistent with the founder's vision.

I honestly don't understand the conflict with conservatives. Doesn't anyone remember the Civil Rights movement?

244 posted on 04/03/2005 8:25:51 PM PDT by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie
Dangit, hit post too early...

and as an American, I better believe what you do

I don't see that at all. I think you're projecting.

245 posted on 04/03/2005 8:26:57 PM PDT by stands2reason (When in doubt, err on the side of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: annyokie

I understand the vitriol against those who follow Christ. You aren't the first, and you won't be the last. But something tells me your argument is really with Him, not me.


246 posted on 04/03/2005 8:28:26 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie

I'm going to bed. FReepmail me if anything interesting happens, please.


247 posted on 04/03/2005 8:28:37 PM PDT by annyokie (Laissez les bons temps rouler !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I was told by a poster that the Schindlers have to be made the enemy to help President Bushs' poll numbers. Also, if it's all their fault and they can be proven to be liars, it lets the congress off the hook because they were bamboozled by these manipulative parents.

Also, the medical term for starvation/dehydration is "terminal weaning". Sounds so much better.


248 posted on 04/03/2005 8:29:10 PM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
It was addressing the point of special rights for one group which do not already exist. You were the one who brought up Gay Marriage in your post about the dichotomy of the GOP(paraphrasing).

I was merely trying to point put how some could support Terri's bill and not Gay marriage.

249 posted on 04/03/2005 8:30:02 PM PDT by Diva Betsy Ross (Code pink stinks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Hmmm - and this piece of doublespeak lib malarkey fools who?

Trouble is, he didn't FOLLOW the law...he made his own. He IS an activist CINO - and he's gotta go

I understand there were impeachment petitions even before we all became aware of him.

I want to see a full scale investigation, state and federal. I am tired of the republicans letting things slide by

250 posted on 04/03/2005 8:30:35 PM PDT by maine-iac7 ("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
See what I am saying? You would rather have the crumbs than the bread.

Any government that will not protect innocent human life is not a goverment worth supporting. You don't have to be a social conservative to know that simple truth, but it helps.

Social conservatives are not going to keep their mouths shut on this all-important issue whether it embarrasses you or not.

251 posted on 04/03/2005 8:30:42 PM PDT by JCEccles (If Jimmy Carter were a country, he'd be Canada.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: annyokie

You really have no respect for religion do you?


252 posted on 04/03/2005 8:31:13 PM PDT by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)
How many people have had the feeding to pulled because they had no immediate family to make that decision?

How many have had the tube removed at the agreement of all family members?

Do you have any statistics?

In how many of the cases where all family members agrees to remove the feeding tube would you argue against it or protest outside the hospital, or file court action to stop it?

Again, I am not stating a preference here, I just want to know where this is going and why no others have been mentioned here.
253 posted on 04/03/2005 8:31:41 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
congress can, at any time, disband any court, or "reform it" entirely, except for SCOTUS.

Really? Wouldn't it be great to see about 12 courts in Florida shut down? Just for starters.....

254 posted on 04/03/2005 8:32:46 PM PDT by maine-iac7 ("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

The first impeachment petition I saw for Greer was three or four years ago.


255 posted on 04/03/2005 8:33:19 PM PDT by Diva Betsy Ross (Code pink stinks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne

Think about it. How are we supposed to know about all the instances? Do we have cameras installed in hospices and hospitals around the country? Unless there's a family dilemma, it won't even make the local news.


256 posted on 04/03/2005 8:35:57 PM PDT by stands2reason (When in doubt, err on the side of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne
Read my post then! As I stated, this is THE ONLY CASE OF ITS KIND (as reported even in the MSM, who was hardly her friend). And it raised a legal issue that NEVER HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE. Clear enough? Now you have your answer. This case is recieving the attention it is because it is the first.

Your disingenuous dodging does nothing to change the issue. Now you know the facts. So, does the government have the authority to order you to not be fed, even by mouth? Yes or no...

257 posted on 04/03/2005 8:36:49 PM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Still teaching... or a reasonable facsimile thereof...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne
To be perfectly honest, I've often asked myself the same things. It kinda scared me that this sort of thing might actually be routine in America. I'd heard of DNR's, but I'd never heard of court orders prohibiting oral feeding. That's just too creepy for me.
258 posted on 04/03/2005 8:37:30 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
If you guys had the chance to hold me down and carve me, I'd have to agree

Why would you hate morality or righteousness so much?
There are eternal truths about human nature whether you believe in God or not. Humans have both a good side as well as a bad side. When the good side of man and those truths that apply are ignored, liberalism sets in, and man kind begins to destroy itself. That's just the way it is.

259 posted on 04/03/2005 8:38:10 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Vote Republican - Vote morally correct!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne
It is impossible to know about let alone deal with all such incidents, so one must deal with the incident at hand. In this case, it is Terri Schiavo.

The pinciple defended in one is the principle defended in all.

260 posted on 04/03/2005 8:38:28 PM PDT by JCEccles (If Jimmy Carter were a country, he'd be Canada.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 581-598 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson