Coulter on Schiavo, plus Congress' supremacy over state courts

We had a spirited discussion on the Schiavo ruling by the Florida state court judge who told Congress to piss off with their federal subpoena. Well, this may get lively again. Coulter's column is brilliant, as usual. I've snipped excerpts from the column to keep it relevant to the topic at hand. Relevant excerpts follow:

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings. Admittedly, this was a very long time ago – back in U.S. history when the judiciary was only one of the three branches of our government.

(snip)

As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?

Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."

I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature – or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."

(snip)

It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice borne of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer and Ten Commandments displays.

Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.

Florida state court Judge George Greer – last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death – determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman.

Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan – although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them.

Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.

Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request – a more humane death, by the way – the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism." President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police.

What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous – literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped – solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)

President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn't stop the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo.

I had forgotten that Greer allowed Helene Ball to be killed by her husband in 1998. Liberty Post reminded me of that:

Imagine for a moment that you are a Circuit Court Judge. A terrified woman comes before your Court pleading for her life. She testifies, under oath, that her violent and demented husband raped her, set her clothes on fire and threatens to kill her. She needs your help and petitions your court for an Injunction for Protection. What would you do? Well, this is what a real Circuit Court Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida; by the name of Judge George W. Greer decided.

He actually had this exact case come before his bench seven years ago, when Helene Ball McGee, from Dunedin Florida pleaded with him to grant her an Injunction for Protection. Helene was in absolute fear for her life. Judge George W. Greer, however, refused to help her, because (according to him) she had not shown him enough proof that her husband was physically violent yet. Two weeks later her deranged husband, Bobby Lane McGee, stabbed her to death. Perhaps if Bobby Lane McGee, had raped Judge Greer first, he would have had a much better insight into the physically violent nature of her husband.

Now this same gender-biased Judge, with utter disdain for women, is the same Judge in charge of the Terri Schindler Schiavo Case. True to form, this Judge continues to ignore the Constitutional rights of Due Process for Terri Schindler Schiavo, in much the same way he did to Helene Ball McGee, who was violently murdered seven years ago this month. Terri who is physically disabled, has trouble swallowing food on her own and because of this Judge Greer has seen fit to order her feeding tube removed. Her Court appointed 'Guardian' husband who has since abandoned her for another woman, (with whom he has fathered two children) wants her dead and has asked Judge Greer's permission to use hundreds of thousands of dollars from her Medical Trust Fund Money to pay his blood-sucking lawyers to find a way to make this happen.

It worked. Judge George W. Greer has now ignored her parents plea for help and has ordered Terri's execution by starvation and dehydration to begin on March 18, 2005. This cruel, torturous, and horrifying death of yet another woman before his Court will take up to 10 days of horrific suffering to cause her to die. But Judge Greer is not without mercy, no sir; he will allow her parents permission to stay and watch their daughter starve to death.

Seems Greer has a shotty track record at protecting women's lives. Now add "judicial activist" to his resume.

By the way, my anonymous friend who complained of "Congressional activism" in the prior related post should understand that even though courts are increasingly thinking that they're supposed to create laws instead of interpreting them, it is the role of Congress to be activists...NOT judges. After all, Congress makes laws, which by definition IS activism! That's what they're supposed to do! If citizens don't like their Congressional activists, we have a system in place to eject them...they're called elections, and as little Tommy Daschle found out, they work quite efficiently at chucking Congressional activists to the weeds.

Also, one needs to read Article III of the Constitution, which gives Congress jurisdiction over ALL inferior courts! Therefore, when the Senate (part of Congress) subpoenaed Terri Schiavo, the state court went against the Constitution's Article III by telling its superior to stuff it. Therefore, Greer (in light of his horrendous court record, and defiance of the Constitution he was sworn to uphold) should be disbarred, fined, jailed, or some other punitive action.