 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.
thorw=thrown
Such a people do not comprise a civilization, but a house of horror with only a slick veneer of civilization
No one really knows what she wanted. Greer chose for her. What if he were wrong?
Choosing life could always be changed if there was an error.
Choosing death could never be changed if there is an error.
Well said. Very well said.
Thou shall not murder now depends on the meaning of the word "is."
If someone is defenseless, it's a "choice" to murder them.
How things have changed from the founders original intent of "The right to life."
When the 10 natural laws are removed from the publics consciousness, their opposites move in to fill the void - the abominations of political correctness become law.
That is the post I have read on the topic in a very long time.
That is the crux of it all, isn't it.
But the facts tell us there was no such statement and her actions told us there was no such wish. But even if I am wrong about that... Why couldn't we have asked her? Why was she silenced for so many years so we could not find out. She could communicate- why was someone not allowed to ask her what she wanted.
Because the judge didn't want to know what she wanted. And that is where we start with the problems in this case. IT is all documented.
Have you no backbone? Do you simply buy in to the MSM's portrayal of the forces at odds? I am not a "bibler" nor are the friends of mine who both voted for Bush and detested what happened to Terri Schiavo. We are not alienated, we are not against the right to make end of life decisions in either direction.
We are for the right to self determination and so it seemed was Florida law until Greer got a hold of it and found the right to die the compelling presumption.
Isn't it the governments job to defend the lives of the American people? Even mass murders get a personal lawyer and their day before the Supreme Court.
I'll start with: Randall Terry and his friends.
Your post 237, I saved it. Wonderfully said.
That is probably the most horrifying aspect of the entire case to me.
That a judge (of any kind) could sentence an innocent human being to no food and water in any way until they died. Evil.
Agreed. There's no justification whatsoever for the State to interfere in a marriage like that, no excuse for delaying and denying the right of a woman to escape her situation, no reason behind such support for people who wanted to act violently against our legal system.
It's interesting... your name has always reminded me of a friend of mine who chose--soon before your "Torie" join date (I've been around here for a while, under a previous nickname)--to die rather than live a life she didn't want. Doctors couldn't treat her and wouldn't help her to escape, so she acquired cyanide herself and died a horrible death, far from painless.
Do I miss Torry? Yes, every day. Would I wish her to be back here, against her desire? On an emotional level, yes...but would I truly want it? No...I care too much for her. I respect her too much, and just wished she could have had a more dignified way to go. That is true respect for life.
No they just strap them to a bed for fifteen years and auger for fifteen more.
There may be some disagreement, but the really rabid religious fundamentalists can be just as dangerous to liberty as any of the really rabid leftists in the democrat party.
Examples:
1. Randall Terry, who has a long criminal record in connection with his 'Operation Rescue'. Terry and Operation Rescue have a long history of violence against those with whom they disagree.
2. Louis Sheldon, of the Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon and the TVC have a history of lobbying against scientific research which does not support his agenda. Furthermore, Sheldon and the TVC have been implicated in some very questionable lobbying tactics. Sheldon was working for the major drug companies, to oppose reimportation of drugs from Canada. However, he told supporters his opposition was to RU-486. Sheldon was lying to his supporters.
3. Fred Phelps, of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. Phelps was disbarred as a lawyer. The irony is Phelps was considered too unethical to be a lawyer, but he was allowed to be a minister. Furthermore, Phelps and his church have been guilty of harassing the people of Topeka, in an attempt to make them to conform to his agenda. Phelps also has a reputation for domestic violence, assaulting his wife and beating his children.
4. Their are others who have equally sordid reputations.
But do you want a judge to have the power to say that you CANNOT eat?
But you're falling for the Big Lie. It was the anti-Greer crowd who were looking to deny Mrs. Schiavo her rights. Recall that the Schindlers and DeLay and others were pointing out that they'd want to keep Mrs. Schiavo's body going even if it were in writing that she didn't want it!
This is a clear case of a lack of respect for Mrs. Schiavo, and for her husband and their marriage. The Left has successfully instigated religious fanatics to shoot themselves in the foot, strengthening Roe, and making them look like hypocrites. :-(
Conservatives look to the Constitution- It is all right there for you -go look. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Representation in court of law.
You advocate Judges deciding about the merits of laws- at the bench and at their whim. There were laws to protect a person in Terri's condition. They were thrown out of court so someone could kill her. That is NOT Conservatism.
Deciding that an American citizen is not person enough to receive their Constitutional rights is not Conservatism.
If people are having their feeding tubes pulled across this country without their consent than I will think of the Schiavo case as Brown v. The Board of Education or Rosa Parks or any other civil rights injustice that came to be associated with one name.
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.