RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS SEEK THEIR OWN 'ACTIVIST' JUDGES

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.

Feeding Terri oraly would have killed her.

So you are saying that we could starve her to death over 14 days because feeding her orally would have killed her? Huh?!?!? What's the difference? If she wanted to die and was PVS (couldn't feel anything), then why not try to feed her orally? If she dies from the feeding, she's dead. If she can't be fed and dies, she's dead. Either way, (according to you) she feels nothing. So what's the difference?

In fact, why wait for her to starve anyway? Wouldn't it have been far more humane to just end her life witha drug to stop her heart? Once you deny her food, she is GOING to die. So why make her body go through 14 more days?

The problem with your argument is that it is far more irrational than you accuse the other side of being. It revolves around personal quality-of-life opinions that have no place in the law. The legal question here is simple, does Greer have the authority to order that Terri SHALL NOT be fed (note that this would be the case even if M.S. had changed his mind. M.S. wasn't given a decision; the court ordered Terri to be starved)? The fact that you avoid the question says everything about what your position is...

P.S. What is the difference between the court ordering Terri starved or electrocuted? The outcome is 100% certain death either way. When you order extarordinary means removed from patients, there is always a chance, however minute, that they will not die (several of those cases have been posted on FR recently). You are letting nature take it's course. But ordering a person to not be fed is a death sentence. So what is the difference between that and ordering her to be given drugs to kill her? Why not do it that way? So you must agree that Terri was killed by court order...

See what I am saying? You would rather have the crumbs than the bread. You biblers are alienating the 80 percent of the base who don't beat that drum due to your noise and the attention you are drawing in the MSM.

This is patently ridiculous. I am not a "bibler", don't even go to church. You don't have a clue what 80% of the "base" thinks...they just might not agree with you. This is an issue the majority of people have yet to face. Bogus push polls may show that people think Terri should die, but most people only have the most superficial knowledge of her plight. At this point they hear "bulimia", "permanent vegetative state", "right to die" because that's what the media has (hysterically) reported. However, the truth does have a way of coming out, just like the constant barrage of bad news coming out of Iraq couldn't forever hide the majority of good things that were happening. A "big" event, like Terri's death or the Iraqi elections give people a chance to reflect and look more closely at an issue. Some of the controversies are already making their way into the mainstream (when my mom knows that MS was a jerk to Terri and downright nasty to her parents, that few of dollars from the malpractice suit went to her care and that she's been languishing in a hospice for 5 years, I know people aren't necessarily buying the Peter Jennings version of events.

Besides, our president is one of those "biblers". He makes no attempt to hide it or to hide the fact that he looks to God for guidance when making decisions. The American people have known this about him since before he was elected in 2000. Had they thought this was a problem they had a chance to vote him out of office in the 2004 election. His best speeches, the ones that inspire and are talked about for days afterwards always reference God. The only people who seem to have a problem with it are very far left wing dems and republicans who seem more concerned with the party "image" than party values.

Kiss off the judicial nominees, the filibuster killer vote, new Supremes------IT'S ALL ABOUT TERRI!

Now this is just downright hysterical. There are many other news items posted on FR with lively discussions. There is a national march planned to deal with just this issue. And, not to rain on your paranoid parade, but Bush can't nominate a new Supreme until one of those currently serving decides to retire. I'm pretty sure, just like we on FR can handle more than one discussion thread, Bush, congress and the American people can handle more than one issue at a time.

However, in answer to your rantings, well yes, it was all about Terri, people were trying to save her life. But it's much more than that...Terri could be any of us and the issues being raised go well beyond the tragic life of this one woman. Feds vs. states rights, states rights vs. individual rights, constitutional protections, diabled rights, how far should an appointed guardians control over the life of the person he/she is supposed to be looking out for go, in a dispute of this nature should the disabled person be given their own legal representation, should monies earmarked for the care and rehabilitation of the person be used to pay for someone else's legal representation...even to the more philosophical issues of how we treat those citizens least able to protect themselves or how far should we, as "average", healthy people go in projecting our thoughts of "I wouldn't want to live that way" into judging the quality of a handicaps person's life.

Guess what? Tragically, she is dead. The circus that was made out of the thing was appalling. We deserve the fall-out from the foolish actions of people sending their children up with water knowing they would be arrested and the protesters acting like snake-handling morons.

You know, I would rather have people coming here for the first time read ANY post by one of these "biblers" than you. On any given topic discussed here there are simultaneous discussions about the religious/philosophical implications, legal, cultural, etc. The threads about Terri are no different. It looks a heck of a lot more immature to come into one of them and whine about what everybody ELSE will think, sling insulting one-liners in an attempt to prove yourself clever and "oh so much more sophisticated and above it all" or screech hysterically that someone's religious beliefs are going to damage the republicans. If you can't or don't want to share in part of the discussion (pro or con) in a reasonable manner then find another topic more to your liking...there's plenty to choose from.

I wouldn't have sent my children up there to get arrested either, but that was their choice and they thought the life of a fellow human being important enough to allow their children to participate in demonstrating that. Beyond that, I must have been seeing a different event than you because what I saw was people who cared deeply about the sanctity of life and wanted to show support to Terri and her family.

Something you might want to consider, thought, is that one of the main reasons the republicans are gaining support is because they put principles before image. Dems try to present a pretty picture of caring about others and valuing life, but their actions don't support their words. It takes more work to get your message out when you're more than pretty catch-phrases, but once people see that their values are more in line with ours (including thosed "dreaded" right-to-lifers...see public opinion on partial birth abortion), as witnessed by the last few elections, the tide does turn. Anybody who DOESN'T know there are conservative Christians in the GOP by now has to be living under a rock. Who cares? There's enough room for all of us. Remember, the dems have so narrowly defined what their beliefs are that they are losing all across the political spectrum. I NEVER want to belong to a party like that.

Cindie

Why do they always fall for the "we can not feed her and choke her- we need to dehydrate her slowly over a long period of time" routine?

Because for all of their sophisticated rhetoric, their argument is still based on personal opinion and emotion. They have an "idea" of which way to die is "natural" (via starvation, as opposed to injection or choking on food). They then project this personal feeling onto the debate. From a rational perspective, the method of death is irrelevant, especially if Terri was really PVS. But the "feelings" they have about it matters.

That's why they don't want to discussion the legal implications of this case. Legal operations are rational, not emotional, and gives them no room to wiggle in their emotions. For example, legally speaking, all of the "facts" cited about this case were determined by one man, Judge Greer. I even had a lawyer come on here a few days ago and (after arguing it for a while) admit that it was true. Once Greer decided the "facts" no other court EVER looked at them. Appeals courts look at the way the law was applied, not at whether or not the trial judge decided the facts correctly. So long as the process the judge used to determine the "facts" follows the law, the actual accuracy of the facts doesn't really matter (there was a big stink about this when VA [I think] changed it's death penalty law a while back. The law was changed to limit the time after which someone could challenge certain facts in a death penalty case. What it meant was that, even if you had incontrovertable evidence of innocence, after a certain period of time the court could NOT rehear certain facts. The justification was that it sped up the application of the death penalty, and if the new evidence was that compelling, the governor would pardon the person). So the argument that 19 judges other than Greer looked at the case is sheer sophistry, as not a single other judge ascertained the accuracy of Greer's "facts." Several FR lawyers (including, if I remember correctly, Congressman Billybob) said that the Schindlers really lost their case within the first years of the case, because their attorney didn't prevent the finding of the "facts," thereby making the rest of the case a foregone conclusion (since appeals courts would not revisit the facts).

Add to this my point in previous posts on this thread, and you have a very scary scenario. A single judge, based on the facts that only he determines, can decide to withhold all food and water from a person, in any form. It's no wonder they refuse to discuss this part of it...

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.