 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.
No, they have no guarantees - their god is capricious, arbitrary, and variable as the shifting sands. The God of the universe is changeless, completely just, and His promises never fail.
Except that the God of the universe is not reigning and judging in absolute righteousness.
That's because they are (literally) in league with the one who is in control of the world's system at this time. (I John 5:19)
I understand it all. However, you seem to stop after the first of our three co-equal rights that you listed (BTW, that's not from our Constitution, Diva Betsy Ross notwithstanding).
What the Jerry Springer FReepers fail to understand is that Mrs. Schiavo was not denied due process for her right to life. Indeed, the federal court even pointed out that she's had excessive process. And it was determined her right to life had been protected.
However, denying her the right to refuse medical care, nutrition, and hydration would have been violating her right to liberty (and heck, pursuit of happiness).
Another thing the pseudoconservatives like to overlook is that part of our liberty is the right to NOT exercise our rights. For example, Free Speech means we are free to express our opinions on the government, even if we dissent. But we also have the right NOT to say anything, should we choose. Right to Keep and Bear Arms doesn't mean we are COMPELLED to carry a gun--it just means we CAN if we want to. Likewise, Right to Life means we have a corresponding right to die.
But there are those who would try to muddle the issue, and reduce our rights, so we are all compliant little sheep.
Three barium swallowing tests (the "gold standard," as the Wolfson report points out) were conducted on Mrs. Schiavo, and in each case, she was unable to swallow.
But humans are not...and a theocracy is run by humans.
Ingnorance is Cynthia Tucker.
We have no such thing at present, as God rules in the hearts of His people by His Spirit indwelling. When Christ returns, He will rule amidst His people - a theocracy.
Now, prove it.
And BTW, you might say you don't fear liberals, but you admit you "fear pseudoconservatives". And the relationship between liberals and "pseudoconservatives" is?????????
You have a poor understanding of the case in question. The critical issues were/are: 1) The trial judge only accepted evidence in favor of one side and excluded evidence from the other, thus creating a one-sided case for appellate review, and 2) Florida has at least two laws that are in conflict with each other. There is no logical way that "the law" could have been followed in the case, because to rule in favor of one law, he had to rule against the others.
Mrs. Schiavos wishes on that are what was litigated in Judge Greers court and here on FR. We have reached vastly different conclusions.
It's in favor of keeping a marriage safe from interference.
True. We also favor contracts. But when one side breaks the contract the contract becomes void. That the folks on your side are willing to wink at the breaking of a contract because it is the marriage contract does not speak well of your commitment to conservatism or libertarianism, whichever it is you claim as your mantle.
It's in favor of local control.
Only up to a point. When locals or states violate inalienable rights, then the federales are required to enter the fray. Think civil rights, Dred Scott, Terri Schiavo.
It's in favor of following the law, and respecting court decisions that are made in accordance with the law.
Sure, but we also favor judicial review when states order the deaths of innocent citizens, as you should. We also favor the big smackdown when courts give us decisions like Dred Scott, and so should you.
All of these things were thrown out the window by the pseudoconservatives who wanted to call in the military, kidnap Mrs. Schiavo, etc.
A long time ago, I advocated that the Schindlers simply take their daughter elsewhere because I knew the outcome was inevitable. If it had been my daughter, I would have. Doesn't make me a "pseudoconservative", it makes me a father.
You know, sort of like the word "racist" or "homophobe".
Or like those who use the words "ghoul", "Nazi", "murderer", etc. because they cannot think of a rational argument.
Ah, yes, lest we forget the purity of the Country Club Republicans ~~~~~
Again, the Quinlan situation played out over a decade and the question of removing her from the respirator was debated hotly even after she was taken off of it.
This is a common lawyer's device for impeaching the testimony of eyewitnesses, especially eyewitnesses who are testifying to events that happen years prior to testimony.
What this exchange shows me is that Mrs. Schindler was not coached by her attorneys, the way liars usually are, while Mr. Schiavo was extremely well-coached and no amount of coaxing on the stand could get him to commit himself to any potentially discorroborative detail.
Again, there you go implying that anyone who chooses such is not sane while in the same post admitting that it is the person's indivual choice.
That's just a few dozen folks. Doesn't seem to me that's anything to worry about.
Wait a minute - are you suggesting that there are more important things in life than marginal tax rates?
What part of "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do you (and Greer) not understand?I understand it all. However, you seem to stop after the first of our three co-equal rights that you listed (BTW, that's not from our Constitution, Diva Betsy Ross notwithstanding).
'Right to life, liberty, and property' is. It's in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Technically, in the Fourteenth it's 'or' because of the negative grammatical/logical construction of the sentence.)
I agree with you about liberty rights and the right to die. However, like many others, I have some issues about the reliability of the evidence that Terri Schiavo expressed a wish to exercise that right.
I agree.
I , personally wish there was a way they could marry -so they could just be happy.
I don't for the reasons already given by you, ie: the slippery slope.
LOL. On the other hand, if they're soft and cuddly and never talk back......
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.