 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.
Thanks for finding this for me.
This sir, was your statement. It was made as an absolute. And, nothing you referenced in your latest post says that at all. If it did, then of course, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, and the federal government would have responsibility to ensure the continuance of the lives of all its citizens. The only reference is to due process, which is a significant limitation to your unconstrained statement above. To further illustrate, if your statement above is correct, then it would be the responsibility of the federal government to fund every conceivable type of medical research to protect the constitutional guarantee of life. But you see, such a guarantee does not exist. If I wish to take my own life, I am free to do so. If I wish to die without extraordinary lifesaving technologies, I am free to do so. The due process clause is not a meaningless assortment of words.
You may not agree with the due process afforded Terri, but were you given responsibility for defining or even more, being the final judge?
You are unhappy over the due process afforded Terri, but so what? Should our judicial system be scrapped every time someone from the political fringes complains? Should we let Mumia Abu Jamal free because some on the left feel he was screwed by the judicial due process?
Our republic has survived longer than any in modern times, mainly because we have a pretty good system in place, and are able to keep the fringe elements away from the mechanics of it.
For instance, I happen to think that every judge in America who has ruled that killing third trimester babies is a guaranteed right in the US Constitution is a lunatic.
Why just third trimeter babies? Does the constitution distinguish? Why not second trimester? BTW, simply because someone has a different set of values does not make him a lunatic.
So, nothing personal, but before you challenge someone's knowledge of the constitution, a reading yourself might help.
So, I again ask the question, where is life an individual right guaranteed by the constitution, without constraint? BTW, the only one challenging knowlege of the constitution was you.
You could have saved yourself the trouble. There is nothing edifying in your post. And I'm not a "sir", I work for a living.
I've noticed that when some of the extremists here on FR get beaten in every argument they put forth, they resort to insults, somehow believing that will give credence to their lost debate. It won't. As for use of the word "sir", it is generally used as a sign of respect, and most folks who work for a living are certainly as deserving of respect as those who don't. I simply assume an air of respect, not knowing that some folks don't wish any.
LOL.
I did some poking around on Google regarding those two people. Hugh Finn's case seemed different from Terri's in that I didn't find anything that said that attempts at oral feeding of Finn were prohibited. But Marjorie Nighbert's case seemed even more horrific than Terri's, because according to the accounts, she actually begged for food and water, and the judge ultimately ruled that she wasn't "competent" to make her own decisions. Now there's a case that should definitely have received national attention.
I can only hope that more of these will be thrown into the spotlight now (or better yet, the threat of it happening will deter some people from making too hasty decisions about ending people's lives), but I'm also afraid that the Schiavo affair will just turn people off to it all.
There's many more cases like these. If you want to ping MarMema she can get you the link. I had the link but can't find it.
When Hugh Finn died, his children were very young. Hugh's daughter Keeley was about 12 yrs of age. She's in college now and has been on FR asking questions about her Dad.
There's some sad stories out there. Terri's case is bringing them to the publics attention.
I hope the disabled, elderly, special olympics parents are paying close attention.
This article is laced with codewords meant to fire up the base of the Democrat party, every single secularist on the left are probably sitting up, cupping their ear in their hand, and hearing the trumpet call.
Citation, please. Otherwise, apology. I'm sitting here with File No. 90-2908-GD-003 in front of me, and it says no such thing. Are you talking of something different?
Are you talking morally, religiously, civilly, legally, ethically, for principles, what? That's one of the problems with mixing up religion and civil marriage.
In many relgious references, it's a covenant, not a contract. But the judge acted on the law, not on religion.
However, for the purposes of argument, it is ridiculous if delaying someone and making him put his life on hold, is a legitimate tactic. Mrs. Schiavo's rights didn't disappear just because people intervened and interfered with Mr. Schiavo's life. Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo shouldn't have to pay the price of someone else's meddling. That's a leftie-type tactic...like trying to bribe a man to sell off his wife's custody and stop fighting for her rights.
If I urge you to break your contract with your partner and you break it, the contract is still broken.
Yes, but you've lost any moral high ground.
they are all examples of process trumping the natural law and individual rights.
And thus people fighting against Mrs. Schiavo's rights, trying to deny her right to die, were on the side opposite the Constitution.
Garbage. If Doctors tell you that your daughter is not brain dead and that she has cortex and may be functioning at some state of consciousness and you don't fight for your daughters life, you are not much of a man IMHO.
Oh, just any doctor? How about modifying that to "if a neurologist who has examined your daughter and doesn't advertise in the National Enquirer..." Oh wait, you can't.
What part of FLAT EEG don't you understand?
Guilt about what?
I was referring to the abuse allegations. It is pure speculation that there was a guilt motive, but it's no less shaky than the "theories" floating out there about Mr. Schiavo...and I'm saying it's only a hypothesis. (I've not seen the video myself.)
If you're going to call this a right-to-die case then you'll need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Terri wanted to die. Not just, this-witness-seemed-more-credible-than-that-witnees, but proof. Do you have it?
For every right, there's a corresponding right not to exercise it.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms--a person has the right to discard and not bear arms.
Freely speaking political views--a person has the right to keep his views private (or perhaps I should say "mouth shut"...with the wish that more of Hollywood would exercise this right :-)
Right of free exercise of religion--a person has the right not to worship (not to be confused with the establishment clause).
Right to life--a person has the right to choose to die.
If we cannot freely choose to NOT exercise these rights, then they are not rights--they are compulsions.
Nobody needs to provide anything to you or to the government or to anyone but God above to exercise a RIGHT. That's what RIGHTS are...we are endowed BY OUR CREATOR with these rights.
I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be. OK, I've looked at 90-2908-GD003. Item 2 seems pretty clear to me that he ordered the removal of nutrition and hydration. Further below the petition asks to allow her family or nurses to feed her manually.
I guess he denied the petition or he wouldn't have ordered armed policemen in her room to be sure nobody did give her food or water. And by the way, she is dead now from dehydration and starvation so what's your point?
It's been reported in news articles that I've read in laymens terms also and no, I'm not looking thru all of them to find it.
The death was court ordered, there is more than reasonable doubt that the victim would have wanted to have all food and water withheld from her both by tube and orally. The courts in America traditionally give the right to life wide lattitude in criminal capital cases. Is it too much to ask the same for severely handicapped persosn whose wishes can not be known?
You're missing the other side of the coin. Much of the bloodiness you refer to was also at the hands of people who had too little faith to do anything about it. And a lot of bloodiness was stopped by people with strong, what you would probably call "fanatical" faith.
It's not strong belief that's the problem in itself, but belief in the wrong things, whether a weak or strong belief.
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.