 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.
What does this gal think people like Lani Davis - about as nasty a liberal as they come; Joe Lieberman; etc etc are?
This is a HUMAN issue, not a republican or democrat or black or white.
They don't get it yet. Their backwards spin works against them as much as for them these days as they no longer control the media.
They're behind the curve
C'mon, that's not even true. If Religious Right has a negative connotation for you, think of another term. There are those for whom the moral/social aspects of life are completely inseparable from their spiritual/religious views.
Some people are put off by the "religious right" whether through guilt, a different belief system or whatever.
Personally, I don't have any issue with people who are very strident in their faith. I do have issue with people who use symbolism over substance - people like Randall Terry. Parents who stage "made for TV" arrests of their children.
You've got to be kidding.
What does a perverse dysfunctional sex fetish have to do with saving the life of an innocent woman? It's like comparing dog poop to peanut butter !
Take a stand, then. Be brave.
My stand: I abhor the ethics taking root in America today whereby callous doctors, nurses, and judges are taking it upon themselves to decide whose life should be cut short on utilitarian grounds. I doubly abhor the killing of innocent, helpless human beings by forced starvation and dehydration.
Florida has a new one started and it's doing quite well. Maybe it'll work this time.
I didn't know we had to create terms with people that are strident in their faith. I certainly have no problem with "those people," tagging them as if they were cattle with diseases.
First of all, they're Americans. And like I said, there is no difference between people of faith. We all live under the same moral guidance. But there's always people ready to disagree. No biggy.
I understand that, but can you name one thread or one person deserving mention other then Terri? Not to downplay her situation by any means.
Mention them. You know my stand.
"Religious extremist" is left-wing codespeak for "anyone who believes in God and doesn't hide it under a basket." And the "activist judges" they seek are those who will read, understand, and most importantly, obey the Constitution. That's what constitutes judicial activism from the Right.
You would have to go back and follow the posts. I am not the one who brought it up. and I don't think the poster who did bring it up meant for it to be in the context of the entire thread. The way I read it- it was a side issue of conflicitng support for a law to protect one person Terri vrs. the non support of a law for Gay Marriage.I am not the one who thought there was a conflict.
What in the world is your problem? What IS the point that you are so desperate to make but seem unable or unwilling to articulate?
Ah! The tactics change! Now that you can't argue on the "government expansion angle," you change to the "why not others" angle. The same argument the left made for Iraq (Well, if we're going to liberate, shouldn't we be doing Iran or North Korea?).
As I pointed out to you, the reason none of those other cases have any posts about them is because they don't involve a massive increase in government power (one of the stated reasons for FR's existence). So your question is answered again. We are discussing it because this case raises an issue no other case does. Now where do you stand?
Quit being mealy-mouthed and get on with it, for heaven's sake.
I'm not trying to label you, I'm trying to make it easier to discourse. Instead of using terms like "Bible-thumper" or "CINO", y'know?
She didn't just lie about the age she lied about the conversation taking place at all. She tried to create the conversation from wishful thinking and her limited knowledge of the Quinlan case.
I am not asking you to state your position about God or Terri, I know where you stand from what I gather. I want to know why no others rise to the level of Terri on this board.
Note my answer (which he ignored) in post #237. He's just trying out a new tactic. The reasons for this case are clear, and it is unique (as even Terri's enemies in the MSM admit). So he's trying to avoid argument here...
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.