 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.
Just like a typical Muslim, huh?
What is up for criticism is people who say they are Conservatives, insulting people based upon their religious beliefs and not having full command of the facts in this case.
A very well thought out and articulate response. Thank you...food for thought. Good points.
Check my postings if you wish, I have many to look at. Why does everyone have to be so damn paranoid they get defensive instead of just responding. It seemed like a normal thing to ask. I am sorry if I have made you feel that way, it was not my intention.
Agreed. So you agree that Greer's order was judicial activism and an expansion of judicial power (since he ordered that Terri Schiavo not even be given the oportunity to eat or drink orally)? Or do you assert that a state court has the authority to restrict you from any oral ingestion of food and water?
It doesn't help by making those comments. Grow up.
I was asked to show where Schindler lied. Now some may say she made an honest mistake with the ages. I don't believe that nor do I believe the conversation took place at all.
It is astonishing how a few dedicated liberals, over the course of about 60 years, have managed to wholly subvert and invert the First Amendment into the means whereby Judeo-Christian religious belief is accorded second-class, almost criminal status.
Every human being makes decisions based on some sort of personal belief system and worldview. Atheists and Christian-bashers are no different in this respect. But atheists and Christian-bashers have succeeded in ensconcing their belief systems and world views as the de facto governing standards of our entire judicial system through the outrageous conceit which holds that because they do not subscribe to religious belief, their judgments are per se rational and good.
Agree. Well put.
That's a nice turn of phrase. The failed law in question however has helped provoke a serious national dialogue. Hopefully, a law passed with more deliberation, its product, will bear more fruit.
Think about it... I wonder if this was all part of Randall Terry's big job security thing...push for the Feds to intervene in Florida, to strengthen the justification for Roe v. Wade (Federal interference in states via "constutitionality overreach," so he can be assured of having a long time to keep his fund-raising going. Why else would a person against abortion support a hypocritical stand like his?
Yes, not all was so sweet and perfect in this case.
I was very careful in what I asserted. This is not the first time that a feeding tude has been removed, nor is it the first time it has been contested. It is the first time that government power has been used to force a feeding tube removed and deny a person any sustinence, even if they are capable of eating it themselves. Big difference!
RIGHT! Conservatism is in favor of individual rights, like Mrs. Schiavo's right to choose death over a life of no recovery. It's in favor of keeping a marriage safe from interference. It's in favor of local control. It's in favor of following the law, and respecting court decisions that are made in accordance with the law. All of these things were thrown out the window by the pseudoconservatives who wanted to call in the military, kidnap Mrs. Schiavo, etc.
****This is not an argument for pulling feeding tubes but a desire to know why she is the only one anyone seems to have an interest in, why is that?****
I believe the reason she was the one who everybody got interested in was because her family took it to the people for help. I did have a family member who had her feeding tube pulled and to this day her parents and brother regret their decision to agree to it.
It was because of her that I was paying attention to this situation. Let's just say that it should have been a closed casket. Once you see the reality of what this is you change your mind. I have made my wishes known that under no circumstance that food and water be removed. ONLY if I was 100% diagnosed as terminal in the very end stages of cancer would I refuse food. There is no way I want to go without hydration at all.
Just like a typical Muslim, huh?
On the contrary, they're opposites.
The Christians look to the God of lite, the Muslims the God of darkness.
The original Essenes looked toward the sun, the Muslims to the moon.
Christians believe in changing hearts through peoples own free will, the Muslims believe in cutting them out - obey or die.
Both religions are like day and night - literally.
Actually, all of those were thorw out by a judge who ordered that Terri Schiavo could not be fed orally even if she were able and willing to eat. How do you like that expansion of government power?
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.