RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS SEEK THEIR OWN 'ACTIVIST' JUDGES

Yahoo! News (April 3, 2005) ^ | Sat Apr 2, 8:25 PM ET | Cynthia Tucker

[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.

Cynthia Tucker

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.

[MACVSOG68]

As long as you're against futon marriage, you're alright in my book. Springs good, cotton batting bad.

Indeed, I draw the line at futons. Not soft and cuddly.....

[MACVSOG68]

But what I am trying to point out to you is the interference was the responsibility of our Federal Representatives.

But you have failed explain why. If Terri's first, fourth, fifth, or fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, then of course, there is already a proper forum for litigating such violations. What new or additional federal laws were required?

[MACVSOG68]

I was merely trying to point put how some could support Terri's bill and not Gay marriage.

And I was pointing out that that pesky dichotomy simply won't go away. As I mentioned in my last post to you, I would like to know what rights Terri did not have that prompted special legislation?

[painter]

I don't think you represent Catholics very well. I think Catholics are better people than that.

She doesn't,and they are alot better people than that.I happen to be one.She is probably one of those "C and E" Catholics.You only see them in church on Christmas and Easter.You'll see me and my family at church Every week!

[painter]

You know nothing about Catholics. I know about Baptists. Let it go.

You don't know much about Catholics either,if you are one.If you are,did you make your biannual trip to church this past Easter?

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Because the "proper forum for litigating such violations" is broken, did not work, was influenced and stalled by Judge Greer.

We just needed the Federal Laws to work without interference of Judge Greer.

[RGSpincich]

The conversation never occurred, Mrs. Schindler made it all up. The problem was that she didn't have a very good knowledge of the facts of the Quinlan case. We all know how long Quinlan lived but it is obvious what time period Mrs. Schindler is talking about.

Even she acknowledged the error and changed the age to 11 or 12 in her testimony. So take up the argument with her.

[Nowhere Man]

I never did see the Terri Shivo case as a states right issue.

Rather I saw it as a constitutional right for each citizen to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment.

Starving a person to death is just not right.

Agreed. I just wanted to point out to the folks who use "states rights" in the defense of starving Terri. I know we need to be working on restoring some of that, but one, we must realize that states rights really died from time of the Civil War ending to the advent of technology. Well, maybe "died" is a wrong term but I think "truncated" or "trumped" are better words to describe it. President Lincoln, I don't see him as a villain, even with my pro-South views, but he was a man who had a job to do and in doing so, decided what path to set the country on.

Getting back to Terri, there are many provisions in the Constitution that could have been used to justify even the use of force to save her. Cruel and unusual punishment was one, lack of due process is another, also I cited the preamble of the Constitution promoting the general welfare. Well certainly starving Terri was not promoting the general welfare. I'll stay on the record that I would have sent in the Army or National Guard to save her if I had to, maybe we do need a Constitutional crisis to come of this to hash things out. The justice system is broken, basically they've fiddled around like modern day Neros while Terri died.

About the Nazi and death cult stuff, well, I call them the way I see them. I know we are not like the Nazis now, but Terri could be a start on the road to where they were on, it takes one in the beginning, then a few, then more, then many, then.....? Who can say where we would be 20 or 40 years from now? That is my concern. Our nation has always taken the moral and ethical high ground in protecting life. I know our record ain't perfect, we have our warts and all, but generally we tried to do what's right. We really dropped the ball on this one.

There are times you have to chuck the process, as was going on with Terri in the judiciary, for expediency, and then sort things out due to the time factor. Even so, we don't know Terri's wishes so if we have to make an error, error on the side of life.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Then why did Judge Greer admit that the mistake was on his part?

GREER ADMITS MISTAKE

[MACVSOG68]

Because the "proper forum for litigating such violations" is broken, did not work, was influenced and stalled by Judge Greer. We just needed the Federal Laws to work without interference of Judge Greer.

So if a judge follows state laws to the letter, but we don't like what he is doing, it's ok for the federal government to "overrule" the judge and the state laws? Sounds pretty much the same methodology the Democrats would approve of.

[Nowhere Man]

Did you ever see the TV movie Charly, based on Flowers for Algernon? Charly is actually happier at the end, however sad the rest of us were.

I saw the movie a while back plus I read the book to it as well as the original "Flowers For Algeron" when I was in junior high, they're good reads and really make one thing. I just wish these "let Terri die" folks would read and see those and I would call and raise you and add in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World."

[RGSpincich]

That has nothing to do with Mrs. Schindler's testimony. Mrs. Schindler cited a specific time period and cited an age for Terri which was not consistent with the time period. The friend's testimony may be affected by the judge's error.

[Nowhere Man]

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.

I think long ago, that would have been the best solution, if I was her father, mother, brother, etc., I would have cooked up a plan to get her in the "dark of night," put her in the back of a van or box truck, and head for "parts unknown," maybe lose ourselves in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana or maybe another country if I could, a place where Michael Schiavo would never find us. At least get out of Floriduh, more and more that place is becoming "Arkansas with palm trees."

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Well sure it does if your contort this case to fill in those blanks-

However as we have seen-The GOP congress, Senate,President and Governor of the State in question- seem to think otherwise.

[Lancey Howard]

What the Jerry Springer FReepers fail to understand is that Mrs. Schiavo was not denied due process for her right to life.

Really? I didn't catch the name of her lawyer....

[Jrabbit]

Have you seen Mrs. Schindlers testimony about this?

[TChris]

AFIK, conservatives don't appreciate judicial activism from any political direction, be they conservative, liberal, socialist or otherwise. My personal opinion is that the Terri Schiavo case highlighted, in the most glaring and painful way, that there is a serious flaw in civil case precedent and statute. When there are civil cases that involve human life, the usual standard of "preponderance of evidence" is simply not enough.

Judge Greer was used to this level of burden of proof. He was treating this like any other civil case. From that perspective, perhaps he did as he should have. But from any other perspective, his rulings were a travesty.

Civil cases that involve human life should require the higher standards of criminal cases. Terri should have had a jury. She should have had the benefit of the presumption of life, just as accused criminals do. She should have had the protection of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

With any of these protections ordinarily afforded every rapist and murderer, certainly with all of them, Terri Schiavo would still be breathing.

[inquest]

When there are civil cases that involve human life, the usual standard of "preponderance of evidence" is simply not enough.

Thank you. That goes right to the heart of the matter. Terri was basically being treated as a piece of property.

[TheForceOfOne]

Thanks for responding Diva.
I agree, the issue is larger than Terri and it is not a clear cut case of life over death in all instances.
Those who wish to die naturally and have stated their intentions in writing prior to becoming incapacitated should have their intentions granted.
I think the real argument is for those who have not done so in writing and without proof of their wishes we wish to err of the side of life.
The Pope did not wish to be kept alive in the hospital, he wanted to die naturally in the place of his choosing. This decision didn't mean he wished to be starved to death but he had decided how his life would end. One could argue that the hospital could have extended his life artificially for days, weeks, or years who knows but they didn't disrespect his wishes.
I personally couldn't ask that the feeding tube be removed, I couldn't live with it unless it was clear the person was in great pain and suffering and my whole family was begging me to stop the pain. It would also have to be clear to me the intentions of the family were just and not about inheritance of money or property.
I don't know all the inside information on Terri and whether or not she could communicate her wishes but I did hear that when she was receiving treatment she was learning words so had treatment continued I would be more inclined to believe that was true.
I may have ask a question that put the cart in front of the horse but it just seemed as though the board would be flooded with other cases even if not exactly like Terri's but close enough to mention.
I read where FOX News stated there were about 35000 to 40,000 other cases like Terri's out there. Did that mean with legal dispute? I don't know but that is a lot of cases to pull from if one would wish to continue the debate or expand it beyond Terri.
I think the fact Terri's family asked for help in a case in which no will existed should have provoked the court to prevent her death until all aspects of the case were cleared such as the notion she was abused and did it lead to her situation. I don't know but red flags were up.
I think the best thing that could have happened in this particular case would have been to grant the parents custody of the daughter.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"Personally, I look forward to the theocracy to come."

Personally, I fear and mistrust anyone who believes too strongly in anything. True believers are just a little too willing to punish those who do not believe as they do.

Secularists will put a plastic bag over your head just as fast as God-fearing folk will tie you to a stake and light a match if you don't have the same interpretation of reality they do. Believe too strongly in anything and you become blind. If you lose the ability to see clearly you become dangerous to yourself and others. Michael Frazier