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.

No I said have fun with them. You do not find it interesting tho- they they have the same point of view that you have?

Only to the extent of wondering why conservatives are so anxious for judicial activism and federal government intervention. As for their take on Terri Schiavo, we part company. I hoped, like many here, that something would push Michael Schiavo to divest control of his wife, but to no avail. Unlike the left, I would like to see states enact laws that would give consideration to requiring written documentation in cases similar to Terri's. I would like to see laws enacted to require judgment made on the side of life where any kind of conflict of interest appears from the standpoint of the guardian. So, no, we are far from having the same point of view.

I have no idea where the Nazis stand on this issue- since i don't think anyone from the Nazis group has made public statements about Terri. (But I could be wrong of course)

Haven't heard from them, but many here and in Florida have compared Terri's plight to that of the six million jews who were murdered. A bit of a stretch, I would say.

The Youth Communist organization, our most left representatives and the ACLU have all made statements this month that the Federal Government should not be involved in Terri's case. While some of our most respected Conservative representatives and legal minds have said otherwise.

And yet 40+ judges were involved in the reviews of this case, many quite conservative who saw otherwise.

Mrs. Schiavo was not denied due process for her right to life.

I agree with that. For me the question is whether the citizens of Florida have, with certain quiet legislative assistance from Mr. Felos and his friends, created a due process that errs on the side of death. And if they have, whether they know that's what they did, and whether that's what they want.

I don't believe the instant polls on this. I don't think that 20% of the people being polled know enough about this case to have a truly informed opinion. And since this is literally a matter of life-and-death, it would be best to wait until they do.

"Losing rights" is a red herring. No one serious intends to bar the use of Advance Directives, or to dishonor them. The question facing us here though, is what happens when there isn't one.

Florida law is quite explicit on this; it is one of few states that allow a surrogate decisionmaker — in this case, the husband — to speak for the incapacitated individual as to what their wishes might have been.

It is true that all of this was followed to the letter, and that there do not appear to be any procedural errors in the "process" that led to Mrs. Schiavo's death. It may even be true that her death was the best solution, even for her.

But I don't think we know that, and we have a "process" that appears to have ignored the sizeable financial incentive that awaited Mr. Schiavo should Terri have died when he first proposed the idea.

A datum which I do not have, and wish I did, is the level of sophistication of Mr. Schindler. I would like that because I do not know what to make of the procession of egregiously bad lawyers and quacks that he employed in his quest. It may be that he did not know any better, or lacked the funds to do better. But it may also be that his real goal was to make sure, as cheaply as possible, that by God, if Michael was going to kill her, that trust fund was going to be drained to zero before he did it. If nothing else, Mr. Schindler accomplished that.

I remain concerned, however, that a process that is biased in favor of death-when-in-doubt, aided by a procession of egregiously bad lawyers and quacks, failed to operate as designed. The "process" made a decision that, originally at least, may have been motivated by money. This is still a possibility that no one can discount. Without a mind-reader, we will never know. What we do know is that somebody is dead, and it might be for some very wrong reasons... the possibilities of which appear to have been completely ignored throughout the entire "due process."

You wanna know about PVS? Let me tell you a little about PVS that you can't glean from the Internet sites. PVS is NOT a final diagnosis. In medical speak, yes, it sounds very devastating and final. It sounds as if there is never any hope. Well, I will tell you something different FRiend. I have a relative who, after a serious motorcycle accident in 1986, was diagnosed as being in a PVS.

According to tests run on him, 18 yo Chuck was brain dead. Fully supported by this entire family with no one dissenting, his mom "pulled the plug". Chuck continued to breathe. We ALL waited for him to "die" but it never happened. Chuck was later diagnosed by Dr. Hucks-Follis ( Pinehurst, NC ) as being in a PVS. There was absolutely no hope for recovery he said. Chuck was a "vegetable" he told us all.

Wrap your mind around a mother who loves her son with all of her being and who was his advocate, nurse, therapist when need be, drill sergeant even at times and you will see why Chuck is no longer considered to be in a PVS.

Elaine began feeding Chuck while he was on a feeding tube. Chuck's facial bones were all crushed and because of his brain injury, it was said that he would never be able to eat again. But, Elaine decided to give him a taste of jello. Just a little and enough for him to taste. Well, he swallowed it. She began giving him more. He swallowed it. She advanced him to broths then soups and then soft mashed foods. He swallowed. She knew then that he could eat and had the tube removed. Over time his appetite became so voracious he had to be put on a diet because he gained so much weight.

Chuck didn't repond to much stimuli either. We often wondered if he was even "there". Again, movies were played. Music was played. He was talked to as if he was with us. He was carted in and out of the hospital and nursing home strapped to a chair to church every Sunday. He was taken to the beach, to baseball games, to weddings and cookouts. He went to his grandmother's funeral. Then he was discovered to be partially deaf. Hard of hearing. Well, there was an answer to the "why is he not responding" questions. Different methods were used to get his attention. When his best friend visited him and spoke to him "face to face" he gave him the middle finger. Not a nice gesture, for sure, but it was one that was very welcome. From there on, more progress.

His muscles began to atrophy shortly after his accident but she began to stretch him arms and legs on her own. No doctor encouraged this. She just did it out of common sense and love. The more she did this the more he limbered up. He had rehab and can now feed himself.

A couple of years ago, Chuck spoke his first word. He didn't groan and moan like usual but clearly said "Mama" and laughed when he did. Do you even have one idea of how beautiful that one word was to his mother?

Chuck doesn't walk as he is paralyzed on his right side. He is slightly deaf as well. Yet, he is as much a part of this family as I am. He is at every function even vacation. We have ALL taken care of him to give his mother a break. It is inconvenient at times but no more inconvenient than having another child to care for. He's just bigger, that's all.

Not a single one of us would have considered removing from him the basics necessary for him to live. It wasn't out of selfishness, that's for sure. We all decided to "let him go" many years ago when we supported his mother's removal of his respirator. It wasn't his time. Because he didn't "die" when he was taken off of life support, we were ALL given a charge to care for him. We did. We provided him with what he needed to recover.

Michael Schiavo did NOT do this for his wife. Had it been "her time" she would have ceased life when her ventilator was removed years ago. THAT was artificial means of life support. Feeding her was not artificial life support. It is something that you and I require too. Is your spoon artificial means?

Who are you to say that with proper and continuous therapy Terri would have never recovered to some extent? Hell, who are her doctors to say the same? The human will to survive is often the basis for many miraculous stories. Yet, Terri, along with any will she may have had, was denied the basic care she needed. After her husband was awarded money for her care, all because he promised to care for her for the rest of HIS life, he disallowed any palliative care. If he denied that much who was surprised when he wouldn't even allow her to be treated for a simple infection? Funny thing is, she lived through that infection and several following infections. She did not die. Terri lived in a subexistant state because she was denied anything that would have made her better. Who knows what could have been for Terri? Not you, that's for sure. Why was she denied a chance? Why? I'll tell you why. The husband's greed and selfishness and possibly fear of her recovery. That's why. That man did not love Terri. Love supports, nurtures and is willing to do what is right. In this case, right would have been giving her over to her parents and getting on with his life.

God's will? I think not. Maybe some folks need to take in consideration that God's will may have been to use Terri's situation to teach OTHERS about sacrifice, selflessness, charity, and unconditional love.

But, what the hell. We can't let all of that stuff stand in the way of the law and a little money, can we?

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.