Posted on 03/31/2005 9:55:21 AM PST by Bigfitz
``In resolving the Schiavo controversy it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution,'' wrote Stanley F. Birch Jr., a judge on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. His opinion accompanied a ruling by the full court refusing to hear an appeal by Schiavo's parents, who want her feeding tube reinserted.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampatrib.com ...
That damned "judge" can kiss my royal Irish behind.
If inability to read the Constitution is not an impeachable offense it should be.
I'm glad this guy put his arrogance down in writing. He and Judge Greer can be the poster boys for the effort to hose out the judiciary.
I am trying, totally without success, to find an email address for Judge Birch. I've already written my letter to him -- I think it will hit him where it hurts -- but I would prefer to email it rather than resort to postal mail. If anyone can help, I would be very grateful; thank you in advance.
Yeah, I get it. The founding fathers wanted the judicial branch to be appointed for life, write its own laws, be untouchable, and utterly disregard the Constitution while claiming to love and defend it. Gee, why would the citizens possibly have a problem with that?
Judges hate it when Legislatures try to thwart the will of the courts by passing laws!
The "unfathomable human tragedy" is a judiciary completely out of control.
Where, oh where, are the pompous and condescending judges, when gun control laws are penned by the legislatures and signed by the executives? They don't exactly conform to the wishes of the founders nor the confines of the Constitution, but the judges are nowhere to be found.
AND THEY SAID IT COULDN'T HAPPEN IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!
I GUESS WE BETTER START LEARNING THE NAZI SALUTE...
WHAT A VERY VERY VERY SAD DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY.
The judicial branch needs an enema. Stick the hose through Judge McGreer's front door and wash them all into the Atlantic.
Here is my letter: Dear Mr. Birch: Your most recent opinion re: the Terri Schiavo case reminds me of a temper tantrum thrown by a spoiled, petulant child. After closely watching this case, I am beginning to think that most federal judges are immature children, romping around in black robes and DEMANDING the respect they ought to be EARNING. Shame on you.
Sincerely,
"Judge Birch now argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this case due to constitutional infirmities in the legislation enabling federal review of this case. In particular, he identifies four provisions of the act that “constitutel legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions.” Ante, at 9. I believe that it is fully within Congress’s power to dictate standards of review and to waive in specific cases nonconstitutional abstention doctrines. Indeed, if Congress cannot do so, the fate of hundreds of federal statutes would be called into serious question. I wish to dispel any questions about our jurisdiction in this case. Under Article III, Congress has the power both to establish federal courts and, except as to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, to make exceptions and regulations as to their jurisdiction. U.S. Const. art. III. The Supreme Court has recognized, at least in some contexts, that Congress also has the power to require federal courts to entertain causes of action they would not otherwise have entertained for prudential reasons."
"While I think that the plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim, I am not certain they will succeed on the merits. One reason for my uncertainty is the hurried pace of this litigation. To give the plaintiffs claims the reasoned attention they deserve, and to develop the certainty the law demands, we should rehear this case en banc. The United States Supreme Court encourages such caution in life-and-death situations, such as in its federal habeas jurisprudence. The Court has said that “[i]f the district court cannot dismiss the petition on the merits before the scheduled execution, its is obligated to address the merits and must issue a stay to prevent the case from becoming moot” when the prisoner dies. Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 320 (1996)."
Birch is one of the most conservative judges on ANY of the Appeals' Courts.
Dick Armey, former House Majority Leader, said, had he stiil been in Congress, he would never have brought the Weldon bill to the floor.
Does anyone else see a pattern here? Why is it that the worst justices (Harry "Kill 'em In the Womb" Blackmum; Anthony "Norwegian Law" Kennedy"; and this arrogant ass) are all nominated by Republican Presidents?
This guy needs to be impeached.
From http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=176
Birch, Stanley F. Jr.
Born 1945 in Langley Field, VA
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on March 22, 1990, to a seat vacated by James Clinkscales Hill; Confirmed by the Senate on May 11, 1990, and received commission on May 14, 1990.
Education:
University of Virginia, B.A., 1967
Emory University School of Law, J.D., 1970
Emory University School of Law, LL.M., 1976
Professional Career:
U.S. Army Lieutenant, 1970-1972
Law clerk, Hon. Sidney O. Smith, Jr., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, 1972-1974
Private practice, Gainesville, Georgia, 1974-1984
Private practice, Atlanta, Georgia, 1984-1990
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
They keep their contact information as hidden from the public as possible. That's another reason they're considered "The Imperial Judiciary."
Birch IS the one of most conservative on any appeals courts and I do not disagree with his assessment.
You must be right; I have worn myself out looking for an email contact even to the eleventh circuit, much less to Birch himself. I guess I will have to postal mail it, and hope I don't get audited.
It is possible to be "conservative" and wrong
What the hell is a "conservative" these days anyway?
Isn't it possible that you and the august judge are wrong?
Anything is possible. I do not believe we are wrong in this case. Please keep in mind I am speaking of his assessment made of "the legislative and executive branches of our government".
Article II
The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article III
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour.
Vastly different requirements.
So I understand this is a pretty good judge overall. How he can think that the U.S. Constitution does not protect the life of Terri Shiavo from death via state-ordered neglect is incomprehensible to me. But whatever. May he then apply the same standard to EVERY other case. And may the liberal judicial-legislative agenda die right along with Terri Shiavo.
Legislation by judicial fiat ALSO violates the separation of powers doctrine, but try and find a judge who objects to that (other than Robert Bork).
Coward. Could be that he was afraid if he actually heard or read anything from the parents; he would change his mind and Terri would still be living.
"I blame the EVIL liberal communist law professors in our colleges who brainwashing law students to ignore and walk all over the Constitution!"
Amen. This is a journey of a thousand miles. The first step is the rally Jim Robinson was talking about. Others, like me, who can't go there, can plan on how to get large numbers in their local areas informed. FReegards....
There's your answer he went to Emory. As a Georgia Tech grad who was active in College Republicans, we considered Emory about as conservative as the trendy side of Boston.
You forgot the three most liberal justices of the past 50 years: Brennan (Eisenhower), Warren (Eisenhower), and Stevens (Ford).
Yes, thank you. Stephens is one of the worst, the senile old coot. To be fair, there is Scalia and Thomas, but considering that we've had Republican Presidents for 24 of the last 40 years, I'm beginning to think depending upon the Republican Party to fix the courts is a vain hope.
Let that be a warning to those of you who dare to question the edicts issued by our black-robed masters.
I don't think he fears impeachment.
Arrogant judicial tyrant. If this is the same one mentioned yesterday, he's supposedly conservative. If so, he has lost his way, and prefers judicial supremacy over representative democracy. I am amazed at this attitude on the part of judges. What is so unusual about Congress asking a court to review whether a state has decided to put someone to death by looking at whether the facts support the lower court? If this was a death penalty case, it would have been overturned in summary fashion, and a stay would have been ordered before they even looked at it.
This is in reference to post #35 (which has already been removed). I'd like to ask the poster what "clear and convincing evidence" Judge Greer saw in 2000 that made him come to his conclusions? In the absence of a Living Will...or any written declaration, how can a Judge rule anything "Clear and Convincing" as required by Florida law? This becomes even more troublesome with the contradictory statements made by others.
Michael Schiavo won a large settlement predicated on his admissions that he was going to take care of Terri for the rest of his life; so long, in fact, that according to what I read, the award was based on 50 years of care. Yet, we didn't hear anything about Terri's wishes to die until something like 7 years later. In my mind, MS either lied to the jury in his malpractice lawsuit...or he is lying to us now.
He's a reliably conserbvative judge appointed by President George Bush, but this opinion is perfectly consonant with a the liberal view of the separation of powers, i.e. judicial supremacy, that has prevailed since Brandeis and the FDR appointed hacks on the Supreme Court and the liberal establishment in legal education decided to twist Marbury v. Madison into their means for acheiving socialism in America. People crave power. In this man's case, it is possible his lust for power trumped his ideology.
Yeah. Right. And revisionism takes another prisoner.
Anyone have a link to the full text of this "judges" opinion?
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdf
His point is that the legislature interfered with the procedures of the courts and they shouldn't. That could be true if it is carried to the point of interfering with the court's ability to function however this law doesn't. If Judge Birch's view were taken to it's conclusion the legislature could never implement the Fourteenth Amendment- only the courts could!
There is a devastating, IMHO, response to Judge Biirch by two other judges..
Correct and apparently his facts
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.