Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Assails Schiavo Law
The Tampa Tribune ^ | 4/01/05 | ELAINE SILVESTRINI esilvestrini@tampatrib.com

Posted on 03/31/2005 9:55:21 AM PST by Bigfitz

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
An interesting article from a Black Robed Shylock whom is employed at his gig for life and doesnt have to answer (In his mind)to us mere mortals. I encourage the Executive and Legislative branches to act on the behalf of the Constitution and rein in these Demi Gods.
1 posted on 03/31/2005 9:55:21 AM PST by Bigfitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

That damned "judge" can kiss my royal Irish behind.


2 posted on 03/31/2005 9:56:45 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

If inability to read the Constitution is not an impeachable offense it should be.


3 posted on 03/31/2005 9:58:21 AM PST by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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.


4 posted on 03/31/2005 9:59:16 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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.


5 posted on 03/31/2005 9:59:50 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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?


6 posted on 03/31/2005 10:00:10 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Proud infidel since 1970.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

Judges hate it when Legislatures try to thwart the will of the courts by passing laws!


7 posted on 03/31/2005 10:00:23 AM PST by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz


8 posted on 03/31/2005 10:00:34 AM PST by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz
Judges ``must conscientiously guard the independence of our judiciary and safeguard the Constitution, even in the face of the unfathomable human tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo and her family

The "unfathomable human tragedy" is a judiciary completely out of control.

9 posted on 03/31/2005 10:00:48 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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.


10 posted on 03/31/2005 10:00:49 AM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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.


11 posted on 03/31/2005 10:00:58 AM PST by seawolf101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

The judicial branch needs an enema. Stick the hose through Judge McGreer's front door and wash them all into the Atlantic.


12 posted on 03/31/2005 10:01:17 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Proud infidel since 1970.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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,


13 posted on 03/31/2005 10:01:30 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz
Most of the court ruled without comment, but why didn't the Tampa Tribune publish Judge Tjoflat's dissent?

"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)."

14 posted on 03/31/2005 10:01:41 AM PST by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
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.

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.

15 posted on 03/31/2005 10:02:48 AM PST by sinkspur (I'm in the WPPFF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz
Birch, who was appointed to the bench in 1990 by the former President Bush,

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?

16 posted on 03/31/2005 10:03:29 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

This guy needs to be impeached.


17 posted on 03/31/2005 10:03:41 AM PST by rllngrk33 (The UN is a worldwide criminal enterprise run by third world thugs with your tax $$)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz
Judicial Imperialism, plain and simple more here
18 posted on 03/31/2005 10:03:56 AM PST by traderrob6 (http://www.exposingtheleft.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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


19 posted on 03/31/2005 10:05:23 AM PST by LibFreeOrDie (L'chaim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
I am trying, totally without success, to find an email address for Judge Birch

They keep their contact information as hidden from the public as possible. That's another reason they're considered "The Imperial Judiciary."

20 posted on 03/31/2005 10:05:34 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Birch IS the one of most conservative on any appeals courts and I do not disagree with his assessment.


21 posted on 03/31/2005 10:06:26 AM PST by DollarCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport

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.


22 posted on 03/31/2005 10:08:08 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DollarCoins

It is possible to be "conservative" and wrong


23 posted on 03/31/2005 10:08:49 AM PST by traderrob6 (http://www.exposingtheleft.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Birch is one of the most conservative judges on ANY of the Appeals' Courts.

What the hell is a "conservative" these days anyway?

24 posted on 03/31/2005 10:08:58 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DollarCoins

Isn't it possible that you and the august judge are wrong?


25 posted on 03/31/2005 10:11:18 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport

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".


26 posted on 03/31/2005 10:15:23 AM PST by DollarCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky

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.


27 posted on 03/31/2005 10:17:09 AM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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.


28 posted on 03/31/2005 10:18:34 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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).


29 posted on 03/31/2005 10:20:55 AM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz
California Law Allows Euthanasia
30 posted on 03/31/2005 10:25:44 AM PST by TheDon (Euthanasia is an atrocity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz
I blame the EVIL liberal communist law professors in our colleges who brainwashing law students to ignore and walk all over the Constitution! They along with the ACLU have been very successful in accomplishing their communist agenda! Unfortunately these students become our future high ranking judges! Now, question being, WHAT THE HECK ARE WE GONNA DO ABOUT IT??!!
31 posted on 03/31/2005 10:33:40 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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.


32 posted on 03/31/2005 10:35:16 AM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

"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....


33 posted on 03/31/2005 10:37:44 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (<<<< Profile page streamlined, solely devoted Schiavo research)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz
Freer said the public tends to react to the bottom line of court decisions, seeing them as either ``for Terri or against Terri.'' But he said it's important to be clear that judges have to be concerned with the Constitution.

What utter horse sh*t. If they really cared about the Constitution, they would allow the executive to enforce or not enforce their decisions, allowing the checks and balances to operate properly. If they cared about the jurisprudence of the founding era, they would allow juries to try law as well as fact, as no less an authority than John Jay advocated.

This guys is Pharisee who will go to hell and burn for everlasting, if he doesn't repent. May his post-stroke mind get bad enough for even other judges to recognize it.
34 posted on 03/31/2005 10:38:07 AM PST by farmer18th ("The fool says in his heart there is no God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: LibFreeOrDie

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.


36 posted on 03/31/2005 10:59:05 AM PST by edeal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
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?

You forgot the three most liberal justices of the past 50 years: Brennan (Eisenhower), Warren (Eisenhower), and Stevens (Ford).

37 posted on 03/31/2005 11:07:54 AM PST by Texas Federalist (If you get in bed with the government, you'll get more than a good night's sleep." R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Texas Federalist

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.


39 posted on 03/31/2005 11:13:09 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz
His court, His opinion and therefore... His Law.

Let that be a warning to those of you who dare to question the edicts issued by our black-robed masters.

40 posted on 03/31/2005 11:16:00 AM PST by expatguy (http://laotze.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky

I don't think he fears impeachment.


41 posted on 03/31/2005 11:17:14 AM PST by expatguy (http://laotze.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz

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.


42 posted on 03/31/2005 11:18:30 AM PST by Defiant (Amend the Constitution to nullify all decisions not founded on original intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edeal

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.


43 posted on 03/31/2005 11:21:06 AM PST by cwb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dark Mech
Sad that we would allow our emotion to so overwhelm fact and well written and tested law.

A little emotion to save a life in the face of judges who are more committed to procedure than they are to the Constitutition isn't a bad thing.
44 posted on 03/31/2005 11:24:33 AM PST by farmer18th ("The fool says in his heart there is no God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Bigfitz
He's a reliably conservative judge appointed by President George Bush, and his opinion is perfectly consonant with a traditionally conservative view of the separation of powers. But now he's a "Black Robed Shylock."

This forum has been hijacked by hyperventilating children of the corn who have no more connection to conservatism than their new found hero - Jesse Jackson.
45 posted on 03/31/2005 11:29:00 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
He's a reliably conservative judge appointed by President George Bush, and his opinion is perfectly consonant with a traditionally conservative view of the separation of powers.

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.

46 posted on 03/31/2005 11:49:51 AM PST by Texas Federalist (If you get in bed with the government, you'll get more than a good night's sleep." R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist

Yeah. Right. And revisionism takes another prisoner.


47 posted on 03/31/2005 11:55:49 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: All

Anyone have a link to the full text of this "judges" opinion?


48 posted on 03/31/2005 12:01:51 PM PST by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MileHi; atlaw

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..


49 posted on 03/31/2005 1:58:04 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: expatguy

Correct and apparently his facts


50 posted on 03/31/2005 3:36:30 PM PST by Bigfitz (The mind is like a parachute works best when open)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson