 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.
I'm sure you also thought John Kerry was going to cream Bush, too.
Trust me. This is a huge win for the pro-life movement. The pendulum has swung too far to the left this time.
People actually witnessed for 14 days a young woman being starved to death by the state. It wasn't a pretty thing to watch, and the cult of death was cheering it on.
Motives matter. Some wanted her dead because they value death. Others wanted her to live because they value life.
Choose thou!
You're wrong. Greer said, in his 2000 order, that he wasn't required to rule on Michael Schiavo's testimony because he had the testimony of his brother and sister-in-law. He also said that "beliefs of her family and friends concerning end of life decisions are truly not relevant to the issue which the court must decide."
I'll be waiting for Ms. Rational to answer that question.
But I'm afraid it's only going to be another collective insult about us "irrational" religious wackos.
How do you explain me, Mercy? Am I a Bible-thumping religous nutjob as well?
If it's in there, why won't you accept my challenge?
Perhaps it's because you don't REALLY know the Constitution. (Note, I'm assuming you're not just being dishonest, and are just ignorant of it....)
I'm the one who knows what's in there, so of course I know why it was written. :-)
On what basis? The entire rationale of the government established by the Founding Fathers was that government will use every power available to it, so that the power of government must be limited. Greer has just established that the government can order you to not be fed by any means. What evidence do you have that the government will be inclined to stop there? Has the slow creep against traditional marriage taught you nothing?
I haven't answered your question because it is a red herring.
Feeding Terri oraly would have killed her. A feeding tube is considered in law to be a treatment.
Let me know when the courts start refusing food to sentient human beings. I'll get my gun and help you go after them.
"The article comes nowhere near addressing the real issues."
This is NOT an article. This is commentary that in the process manages to commit every crime the writer attributes to the right.
The conversation took place as result of a television show. To reach your conclusion one needs to know the date and contents of the television show and the context in which the conversation took place. If in the show they hadn't yet reached the part where they pulled Quinlan's life-support, the quote makes just as much sense as if they had not yet pulled her life-support in the real-world.
Is there something else upon which you base your conclusion that Mrs. Schindler is a liar?
Only in the liberal polls. The new Zogby poll asked reasonable questions without the spin, and the majority said removing a disabled persons feeding tube was wrong if they required no other life support.
The spin is wearing off, and the majority has seen the light.
The cream always rises to the top sooner or later. Unfortunately for Terri, it didn't happen fast enough.
Stir'n the pot again huh?
btw, 310 pts fer the dreamz team today! wOOhOO!
Seriously, I see no Jesus at all in you.
Hmmm...interesting.... Go back a few months, and Zogby polls were the laughing stock of FR. Now, gospel.
I wish the pseudoconservatives would get out of here and go back to their leftist Zogby Nirvana.
I'll point out just one of the many lies in this anti-Christian bigoted article/spew:
I attended the church that Greer was supposedly kicked out of tonight.
The pastor made it clear that Greer was not thrown out; he quit. Did it publicly in the press a couple years back.
If 99% supported Greer, they're still damn wrong.
The TV show was a TV movie. I don't recall the name and details, but it was found to be quite clear that Mrs. Schiavo's statement was NOT truthful--either intentionally or not.
Probably the same thing as a "bibler." It would be the equivalent of - - - I can't say any of the things it would be the equivalent of. If I did, my husband would call my Mom, and she'd come wash my mouth out with soap. Jim Robinson would permanently ban me from Free Republic. Algore would permanently ban me from the Internet. Suffice to say it isn't a word meant to convey love and respect.
Can you enlighten us as to what she was going through? (I mean before they cut off the nourishment and water.) Seriously, you may know but I, for one, do not.
Try to pay attention to what you are reading. :]
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.