Posted on 05/02/2005 5:06:09 AM PDT by Quaker
NEW PORT RICHEY - Pinellas- Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer, who was thrust into the national spotlight and scrutinized by pro-life advocates during the Terri Schiavo case, was a consistent judge who followed the law, colleagues say.
His professionalism and integrity was punctuated by the way he handled the Schiavo case, said Alan Scott Miller, a New Port Richey lawyer and member of the West Pasco Bar Association.
As part of Law Week, which kicks off today, the association will award Greer, 63, its Special Justice Award.
``He's getting this award for all of his contributions on the bench, not just the Schiavo case,'' Miller said. ``It's like a lifetime achievement award for an actor.''
Greer will receive the award during a banquet Thursday at the Heritage Springs Golf and Country Club, 11345 Robert Trent Jones Parkway.
For years, Greer presided over the politically and emotionally charged Schiavo case, which ended when the 41- year-old woman died March 31, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed a third time on a court order.
Some doctors said Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state since suffering brain damage after her heart stopped in 1990.
Her husband, Michael, fought for years to have her feeding stopped, saying his wife didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means.
Her parents, hoping she would recover, fought him in court after court.
Eventually, Florida's governor and Legislature and then Congress took up the battle.
Supporters and detractors watched as Greer made rulings backing Terri Schiavo's purported wishes and received threats on his life.
``I don't think anyone could ever say his decisions were unlawful,'' said Joan Nelson Hook, president of the West Pasco Bar Association. ``They were very thoughtful. His decisions were meticulous.
``We admired his ability to sustain the pressure not to follow the law. ... I think that shows his character.''
Steve Doran, association president-elect, echoed Hook's thoughts on Greer's handling of the Schiavo case.
``His decisions in that unfortunate case withstood the test of every appellate court in the country,'' Doran said. ``Those who are criticizing him are not seeing the big picture.''
When the association voted this month on this year's recipient of the Special Justice Award, the result was almost unanimous for Greer.
``He's a man of integrity. He's followed the flow. He's done an excellent job on the bench,'' said Miller. ``That's why he's getting this award.''
In addition to Greer's award, the Law Week celebration offers events that allow the community to get a closer look at what the West Pasco Bar Association and the law profession are about, Hook said.
``It's an opportunity to interact with all levels of the community,'' she said.
``It's not just about battles; law is a way of life.''
Here are some events:
* Representatives of the association will be at Gulf View Square mall in Port Richey offering free legal advice from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Wednesday through Friday.
* All week, 22 lawyers will visit Pasco schools to discuss the law and this week's national theme, ``The American Jury: We the People in Action.''
* The 2nd District Court of Appeal will hold a special session at 10 a.m. Wednesday at the West Pasco Government Center, 7530 Little Road, in county commission chambers.
* Business suits, shoes and accessories will be collected at area law offices for Connections, a not-for-profit organization that helps people looking for jobs.
The following law offices are collecting men's and women's apparel:
The Law Offices of Attridge, Cohen & Lucas, 7136 Little Road, New Port Richey; The O'Conner Law Group, 9735 U.S. 19, Suite 2, Port Richey; Pejot Law, 11911 Pine Forest Drive, New Port Richey; and The Law Offices of Gay & Ehrhardt, 5318 Balsam St., New Port Richey.
Reporter Lisa A. Davis can be reached at (727) 815-1083.
Most of us would prefer that every judge would read the Constitution every morning and then adhere to it.
Ah...the old 'move along now, nothing to see...'
And your desire to ignore the most important principle that American freedom rests on is 'less than dazzling'.
I'm not dazzled, Ohioan.
If the moderators were likely to nail you on anything, it would be that -- in the guise of your Clown Posse handle "ElkNotMoose" that you routinely trash Free Republic as a whole, individual Freepers, and Jim Robinson.
This phrase of yours is so incredibly telling.
You admit that you believe that disabled folks' rights are lesser than your own.
God forbid you should ever become disabled yourself and have to have your inalienable rights downgraded in such a way.
So what are disabled folks inalienable rights worth, Ohioan?? 3/5's of yours, maybe??
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." , -George Orwell, "Animal Farm"
It is not I, who have engaged in moral contortions. When you take umbrage at my description of Terry Schiavo's state, you are refusing to look at the quantity and quality of life. Life and death are not absolutes. (This is discussed at length in my essay, Terry Schiavo.)
By any rational standard, at least from the standpoint of defining the characteristics of a human life, Terry was more than half dead. While that would not take away her family's right to keep her alive, if they could afford to, by artificial means, there was also the question of what her wishes would have been. Her poor body was not yours to order, you know. The whole concept of having a Court weigh these factors is intended as a protection for the unfortunate--intended, among other things, to make sure that the unfortunate are not ideological footballs, either for you or me; either for this side or that side of any controversy; or for one faction or another of any family.
I didn't realize that what aomeone said on another forum is held against them here. Guess we all need to worry about what we say then.
How many times are you going to promote your essay and your website on one thread?
If people wanted to read it, they had the opportunity to hit the link the first ten times you posted it.
Damned right I'm refusing to do so. It's irrelevent.
What gives you the right to be the judge of the value of anyone's life, or whether they are worthy of the protections of our Constitution?
It isn't a "contorted manner". I am simply asking that even if a person, by happenstance, loses "the ability to form a clear intention" as to their future, do they still retain their unalienable right to life, or does that become subject to the statements (perhaps conflicted, or questionable) of another, as seems to be the case here. From what I have read of the case, there clearly was doubt as to the true wishes of the individual. Why then is the default assumption that the individual would want to die rather than live?
Why do you imply that she was being denied anything that she could have done for herself?
Something tells me that dying from forced starvation and dehydration would not be something she would choose for herself. Such might be the case for a suicidal individual, but there was no indication of that in this case.
Whether her husband or parents interpretation of her wishes would be sanctioned was certainly an issue. And someone had to make that determination. The Judicial intervention was to protect Terry!
So now the Courts no longer protect the lives of individuals, but the right to kill them?
The Court weighed the evidence and made a decision.
Certainly one where there is reason to question, on any number of grounds.
There is nothing that is more absolute than life and death, sir.
That is one of the more hubristic comments I've ever read on FR.
God-like in your powers of discernment, you are...
That's right. You go to another forum and spend message after message trashing this forum and it's owners, then come back here and play-act like everything's just hunky-dory, expect to be called on your hypocrisy.
The non-sequiturs in that are impressive. But on the subject of the Nazis, you might reconsider. The Nazis chose not to be limited by traditional legal norms and values, either. They believed that Government could exercise whatever power was necessary to do what the majority considered good--that the "end justifies the means."
That, of course, undermined the legitimacy--the morality of Government--itself. And that is precisely what was wrong with the Congressional grandstanding on the Terry Schiavo case, discussed in detail in my essay. The end does not justify the means. And the fact that some folk are not happy with the results of the judicial determinations in the Schiavo case, is not determinative of anything. They need to respect the fact that it was decided in the forum that is provided under our free system, and drop the Nazi-like "morality" which would overthrow the local Court system, for an ulterior purpose.
People are free to say what they what on any forum, as long as they adhere to its rules and don't commit libel. Now, is criticizing this forum on another forum, or for that matter to anyone, against the rules here? You implied that when you mentioned the Mods in your post. And does that mean that you go around reading what, everyone who posts here, posts on other forums?
When you were in school, did you disrupt the class, if you didn't like the grade a teacher gave you?
My reputation is quite sound, thank you. I've never aspired to lower myself to your level, so I'm confident it will remain intact. In the meantime, keep on your current path of righteous indignation. See where it gets you in the end.
Are you aware of the similarities in 'reasoning' between the current supporters of euthanasia in this country, such as George Felos, and that of the 1920's Germans that laid the ideological foundation for the Nazi move to install gas chambers and crematoria in the hospitals to dispose of those they deemed lacking in, shall we say, a certain 'quality of life'??
You're wrong. I don't have to respect anything about what you are arguing for, no matter how you cloak it under the cover of federalism.
I don't know what history books you got that from. My impression is that the Nazis rarely did things by plebiscite. They took their orders from the Leader. Then they or the Leader would whip the populace into a hysteria of "popular support" (not really knowing all that was going on, of course).
Alfred Hoche and others came up with the Nazi euthanasia program. I don't think the German people ever voted on it. But there were plenty of propaganda posters printed extolling the virtues of killing people who fit into the category of "life unworthy of life".
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.