Skip to comments.Judge Assails Schiavo Law
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 ...
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?
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
There's a picture of Birch here:
Thank you, I am going to war with my congressman over this.
Here's the thought that's been on my mind regarding separation of powers:
If we play word games like the Left does, then when did the power of the courts morph from issuing OPINIONS to issuing RULINGS or ORDERS?
If the Executive has the power of ACTING (executing), then the Judiciary issuing RULINGS is usurping the power to act reserved to the Executive.
There can be only one ruler in a Republic, and that is the elected executive. The Legislature makes law, the Executive enforces law, and the Judiciary offers OPINIONS on law, not decrees, orders, or rulings. The Executive should be free to accept or reject the OPINIONS of the Judiciary.
Please let load -- it's 11 mb.
Have headphones or sound on.