 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.
Just as many on the left are embarrassed by the antics of nuts like Ward Churchill, so too have we on the right our own nutcases. We can defend them all we want, but the likes of Cynthia Tucker and others will happily shine a light on them.
It's also taking the Lord's name in vain.
Terri's rights to life, liberty and the right to equal representation in court were denied her.
It has nothing to do with religion or extremists. It has to do with the left running this country without ever winning elections.
Would you care to explain to me why sodomy is a "federal issue" and a womans "right to life" is not?
Yes, it's a good term and it gave me a lead-in to do a little Cindy-bashing. She is so deserving you know!
O, ye cats and little kittens! Anyone who can read can read the Constitution. So what? It's like someone boasting their 3 year old can read the WSJ. That doesn't mean child understands the text.
The key is understanding the Constitution; not only its meaning, but the intentions,goals,ideals,hopes, and fears of those who created it.
Oh, of course not. That's why you take the name of God Himself and turn it into an epithet with which to taunt and diminish others.
That's not only blasphemous according to the religious tradition you profess, rather sketchily, to belong to, but it is also contemptuous and hateful.
I am a good conservative who is tired of being beaten over the head by "Christians."
Being a conservative has nothing to do with approving the forcible starvation of a helpless innocent.
If conservatism countenances such behavior then it is time for conservatives to ask themselves why they have aligned themselves with evil leftists.
If it means someone who believes in Christ, then I am proud to be a Christer.
Based on what the late pope advocated, and what I've seen Catholics on FR advocate, I know Catholics are Pro-Life and anti-euthanasia, or in other words, anti-murder.
Not sure what Baptists have to do with anything.
So, is it just Baptists you would bar from the public square....or are there other people of faith who you feel shouldn't participate in the dialog of the "R" party?
The title of the thread is about religious extremists seeking activist judges.
After nearly three week of TS threads, I have to agree. The rule of law be damned. We want it our way or the highway.
Oh, I see.
I agree. there is less "discussion" and much more hysteria, name calling.
Absolutely - I presumed that annyokie was an atheist when she used such a hateful blasphemy, so I assumed that it was pointless to mention that it was an egregious violation of the second commandment.
Imagine my surprise when she later claimed to be a Christian.
I don't want to bar anyone, except the Taliban of any order. We are a nation of laws, not a theocracy.
[Section 1.]
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Article. IV.
[Section 1.]
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
[Section 2.]
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Ratified Under Duress 1868]
Section. 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You feared?
False
Evidence
Appearing
Real
As long as you let yourself fear liberals and their blustering, you will remain defeated.
To say that Judge Moore handed Mr. Press his head on a silver platter would be an understatement. At every turn in the conversation Judge Moore was sighting facts and giving proofs. The best Mr. Press could offer was a sad attempt to blow of the Judges proofs with a haughty laugh.
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.