 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.
All semantics aside, who told you to fear the coming theocracy?
Not to Christians.
We are all looking forward to that perfect theocracy to come, and we know it won't be instituted by the hands of mere men.
Not only will it not be instituted by the hands of mere men, mere men will not be able to prevent it.
Never thought I'd find myself saying this, but as to the above statement, for once I agree with Cynthia Tucker.
k2blader: How utterly outrageous, self-righteous and sanctimonius of you. How dare you! Just because a person has a different point of view from yours doesn't excuse you from your own lousy behavior.
Yadda yadda.
You might want to read the rest of the posts on the thread, especially those from Catholics. They don't have a problem with what I said.
Re your #510, it's a brilliant summation of what's been going on here over the past few weeks. Very well stated and, unfortunately, so true. The scary thing is that there are politicians who either think the same way as the ultra-rightist views expressed here, or are willing to pander to them.
Never thought I'd find myself saying this, but as to the above statement, for once I agree with Cynthia Tucker.
I don't. To use an analogy, I have respect for the police, but that doesn't mean I'm going to obey every single "order" that a policeman gives to me, no matter how patently outrageous. Likewise, any "law" that demands the death of an innocent person doesn't deserve respect, and saying that doesn't mean I have no respect for the law.
Would you characterize the people who assisted runaway slaves on the Underground Railroad as lawless?
Of Italian-Irish-English ancestry, I was raised a Roman Catholic. I have a very big problem with what you said.
Yes. That is a different question and answer from whether or not they were right to do so. Yes, they were.
However, there is no comparison whatsoever between slavery and the issues raised by the Schiavo case. You are free, of course, to respect or disrespect what you wish. In the same vein, I and others are free to view you as a religious extremist who admittedly has no respect for the law and no understanding of the separation of powers on which this government was founded.
Well, you are probably in the same category as annyokie then. And as such, I reject your representation of Catholics, who (as I mentioned before) are strongly pro-Life, anti-euthanasia, and, in a word, anti-murder.
And whether you are Catholic or not, I don't have much respect for anyone who agrees with uber-leftist Cynthia Tucker.
Great post. Inspirational. Thanks for sharing.
Where there is life there is hope.
How convenient. Categorize people as "them" or "us." Makes it so much easier to insult, dehumanize and ignore "them." You don't have to apply reason and decency when interacting with "them."
And as such, I reject your representation of Catholics, who (as I mentioned before) are strongly pro-Life, anti-euthanasia, and, in a word, anti-murder.
What does any of that have to do with the single statement from Tucker with which I agreed? It had to do with separation of powers and the rule of law.
As for your "anti-murder" remark, that's a hoot. So you and folks who think like you are "anti-murder," while all those others out there with any difference of opinion on the many issues raised by Schiavo are "pro-murder?" You make Tucker's case, because if that's not extreme I sure don't know what is.
Yes. That is a different question and answer from whether or not they were right to do so. Yes, they were.
So you approve of their breaking the law. That would mean, using your own logic, that you have no respect for the law.
I'm not talking just yet about the merits or demerits of the Schiavo case. What I'm pointing out is that it's possible to disobey certain odious laws that are completely diametrical to the purpose of law, and still have respect for the law in general. Or is it not possible, according to you?
I just couldn't help keep this one from sliding by, given your last post to me where you characterized me as a "religious extremist" despite the fact I've said nothing to you about religion.
Thanks Wolfstar. I hope it was just a full moon. Some of these folks have got to get back to what we are about, not damage conservatism with leftist tactics. Take care
You're welcome.
It's not my problem that you can't accept I think the late pope represents Catholics far better than folks like you.
Being considered an "extremist" by you and Cynthia Tucker is both a relief and an honor.
You don't know squat about me, chum. You don't know my religious beliefs, or even my beliefs about the Schiavo case. All you know is that I agree with one statement Tucker made in her article. And from that you extrapolate all sorts of things THAT ARE IN YOUR MIND, not mine.
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.