At the risk of becoming a victim of Freepricide...I dissent.
I saw a lot of cable news coverage this weekend and heard a LOT of talk radio coverage of this story this past two weeks. One of the most short-sighted aspects I've observed is the call for the 'damn-the-torpedos' approach...defy the judges and just go in and seize Terri. Our local (Sacramento) nighttalk host is even on record on the Sac Union Blog as using force and, well, just read it yourself and decide what he means:
Mr. Bush needs to sign a piece of paper telling Judge Greer to “go to hell” and send in whatever force is necessary to brush aside the small town cops standing between Terri Schiavo and life. Mr. Bush needs to fire the first figurative (God, let’s hope not actual) shot that will take this brewing constitutional cold war hot. Mr. Bush has the moral ground, and the obligation to history. Does he have the courage to act, or is he destined to become an illustration for good men standing idle as evil triumphs is the question.
Whether it's our Night Talker calling for "use of force", or the protestors in Florida or others on the radio demanding civil disobediance, all the parties who refuse to accept the judical outcome risk doing serious damage to the pro-life cause. Worse still, they risk doing damage to the Constitutional system.
What would happen if every Governor just started ignoring the judicial results that they disagreed with? Look at the national chaos caused by San Francisco's mayor when he in all his wisdom decided California voters were wrong when they said marriage was to be between one man and one woman. What if the mayor of crime-ridden Detroit just one day decided that Michigan's gun laws were overly strict and certain aspects were unconstitutional, and started having the Detroit Police Department issue permits for citizens to carry firearms, unconcealed?
The problem with judges needs to be solved with judges. You fight lawyers with lawyers, not with mobs, or extraconstitutional measures. Many who now rail against activist liberal judges forget that a century ago it was the conservative judges who were activist. The problem is the activism, not the liberalism. Those calling for figurative heads to roll need to take the long view. For the end result of your desires to stick, it must be arrived at within the sytem, not from without.
I side with Hugh.
I'll answer all of your points:
1) Use of force.
Use of force is unnecessary. The governor of Florida has the power to suspend the county sheriff (as a county officer not subject to impeachment), appoint his own man and then order the police at the hospice to stand down.
Here are the relevant constitutional provisions:
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE VIII - County Government
Section 1
(d) COUNTY OFFICERS. There shall be elected by the electors of each county, for terms of four years, a sheriff, a tax collector, a property appraiser, a supervisor of elections, and a clerk of the circuit court;
ARTICLE IV - Executive
SECTION 7. Suspensions; filling office during suspensions.--
(a) By executive order stating the grounds and filed with the custodian of state records, the governor may suspend from office any state officer not subject to impeachment, any officer of the militia not in the active service of the United States, or any county officer, for malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony, and may fill the office by appointment for the period of suspension. The suspended officer may at any time before removal be reinstated by the governor.
ARTICLE III - Legislative
SECTION 17. Impeachment.--
(a) The governor, lieutenant governor, members of the cabinet, justices of the supreme court, judges of district courts of appeal, judges of circuit courts, and judges of county courts shall be liable to impeachment for misdemeanor in office.
2) Damage to the Constitutional system.
When judges make judgements that disregard laws, ignore or overreach the constitution, and then command unquestioned obedience of the executive for enforcement, that is judicial tyranny, judges exercising the functions of all three branches of government and a mockery of a constitutional system.
3) "What would happen if every Governor just started ignoring the judicial results that they disagreed with?"
During the first 50 years of the Constitution this happened a number of times. Jefferson and Jackson regularly ignored the Supreme Court. The State of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court by enforcing state law in the Cherokee Nation.
Real "Chaos" began with slavish devotion to bad court decisions; Dred Scot led to civil war, Plessy led to segregation, cases following Brown led to forced busing, taking prayer out of school can be argued to have caused much of the subsequent social breakdown, Roe has led to 45 million dead babies and more social disintegration etc.
Separation of Powers and Three Co-Equal Branches means that there is going to be a certain amount of chaos within the government. That is what was supposed to prevent them getting together and tyrannizing the people. What constitutional provision can you cite that the governor or President must do whatever judges say. And if so, aren't "separation" and "co-equal" just lies?
4) "Look at the national chaos caused by San Francisco's mayor when he in all his wisdom decided California voters were wrong when they said marriage was to be between one man and one woman."
Look at it from the other side: It brought their issue to national attention, it got it into court where some judges have agreed with it, it advanced the issue. You can disagree with it. You can argue that the tactic was wrong as a means of fighting their cause. But there is much to learn from it and the fact that we use arguments against the tactic as a means of defeating them should never preclude our use of tactic for our causes. It is hypocrisy on both sides, but in reality there is nothing wrong with using it while complaining about the other side.
5) "The problem with judges needs to be solved with judges."
SCOFLA is majority Republican.
The 11th Circuit is 7-5 Republican.
SCOTUS is 7-2 Republican.
Judge Greer is Republican (I heard).
It very much appears to me that it doesn't matter who has been appointed. Once on the court, their main motivation seems to be to maintain the power of the court.
6) "Those calling for figurative heads to roll need to take the long view. For the end result of your desires to stick, it must be arrived at within the sytem, not from without."
You and I disagree on what constitutes "the system".
You seem to be suggesting that we "bite our lip", bow down to unjust laws and rulings and then try to convince the judicary to find their own rulings unjust.
Not only is that ridiculous, it not what our founding father suggested and/or intended.