Constitutional and legal experts such as Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum have been warning us for some time about the dangers of all-powerful courts that are not being held accountable. Ms. Schlafly—constitutional attorney, author, and speaker—believes that judicial appointments, especially to the U.S. Supreme Court, constitute the most critical domestic issue of our times, second only to the war on terror.

Apparently, it took something as tragic as the Terri Schiavo case in Florida to wake America up to our perilous situation wherein activist judges hand down unchallenged life-or-death rulings in flagrant disregard for individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Could we have imagined fifty years ago that our own government would knowingly, and without cause, execute an innocent, disabled woman whose only “crime” was that she required a feeding tube?

Florida Probate Judge George Greer took judicial supremacy to a despicable new level when he ordered food and water to be withdrawn from Terri Schiavo and that she be allowed to starve to death despite the pleas of her parents, her brother, her church, and countless friends, volunteers, and health care workers.

Polling to Prop Up Court’s Unconstitutional Actions

Soon after Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed to comply with the court order that mandated her death, an ABC News poll released what they claimed was evidence of strong public opposition to any congressional intervention in Terri’s case.

Many were skeptical of the “strong support” that ABC was claiming for removing Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube. The first response by this writer was, how were the polling questions worded?

 Following is the main poll question, and a second, follow-up question used by ABC in their polling:

As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?

 If you were in this condition, would you want to be kept alive, or not?

 Those who followed this case knew, as many who were being polled did not, that Terri Schiavo was not on artificial “life support.” That was a deliberate falsification, designed to elicit the image of a comatose patient being sustained by machines and wires. Terri Schiavo was not comatose, and was not being kept alive by machines; she was being fed through a feeding tube and she breathed on her own. Numerous medical caretakers have stated that if given proper rehabilitation, Ms. Schiavo could have learned to chew and swallow on her own, but Terri Schiavo’s husband denied her that care—and a number of diagnostic tests that conceivably could have made a difference.

ABC News either did not know the facts about Terri’s condition or they chose to ignore them. The result, predictably, was polling data that ABC was happy to report indicated “broad public disapproval” of any government intervention to save Terri’s life.

Zogby Poll Contradicts ABC Polling

Now, we learn that polls taken after Terri Schiavo’s death have revealed that Americans did not favor the heartless removal of the woman’s feeding tube, as earlier polls had attempted to show.

Poll numbers released by the Zogby organization on April 6, 2005, show that eight-in-ten (80%) likely voters say that a disabled person who is not terminally ill or in a coma, and not being kept alive by life support should not, in the absence of a written directive to the contrary, be denied food and water.  By a three-to-one (44% to 14%) margin, likely voters say that, when there is conflicting evidence on the wishes of a patient, elected officials should order that a feeding tube remain in place. 

The same poll also found a majority (56%) agree that Schiavo’s husband Michael should have turned guardianship for the severely disabled woman over to her parents, based on the fact that he has had a long-term serious relationship with another woman and fathered two children by her.  By a two-to-one (44% to 24%) margin, with one-in-three (32%) undecided, the survey finds that an incapacitated person should be presumed to want to live in the absence of written instructions such as a living will. 

Likely voters in the survey were closely divided on the issue of whether it is proper for the federal government to intervene in a case similar to Schiavo’s.  However, the survey did find overwhelming consensus on government intervention in cases where basic civil rights were being denied.  Three-quarters (74%) of likely voters say that it is proper for the federal government to intervene in such a case; just one-in-five (19%) disagree.

Zogby conducted interviews of 1019 likely voters nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. (Survey by Zogby International on behalf of the Christian Defense Coalition, March 30 to April 2, 2005. Margin of error: +/-3.2 percentage points)

National Awakening . . . Too Late For Terri

For seven years, a single judge, George Greer, exercised a tyrannical rule over Terri, determined to ensure her death. In 2001, he reportedly said from the bench, “The law of this case is that she will die” (Phyllis Schlafly, “Judicial Supremacy Kills,” April 6, 2005). On five occasions, Greer was asked to recuse himself from the case, and five times he refused.

Based on the evidence of numerous affidavits, he also denied a medical examination of Terri that could have taken advantage of recent improvements in medical technology. A bone scan showed numerous broken bones, indicating possible abuse, but Florida authorities refused to fully investigate, bring charges, or even act to preserve evidence. Florida’s Attorney General, Charlie Crist, was apparently too busy campaigning to become the next governor of Florida to take an interest in the Schiavo case. Judge Greer was therefore free to serve as judge, jury and executioner of the unfortunate and helpless Terri Schiavo. Even the most despicable criminals benefit under our laws from a full jury trial, and even when sentenced to death, they have the right to appeal.

Why, then, did the most powerful government in the world allow the court-mandated death of one of its own innocent citizens—a helpless womanwho should have been able to trust the provisions of the Constitution and our laws to protect her?

This egregious failure of justice grew out of the subversive idea being promoted by leftist elites who believe supremacist judges should have the power to override the governor, the legislature, the U.S. Constitution, Congress, the President of the United States, common sense, and common decency. In the Terri Schiavo case, we have seen judicial arrogance in its deadliest form.

The checks and balances between the branches of our government have gone badly awry. Lawmakers still have to face voters and explain why they did what they did. But judges seldom have to explain their rulings to anyone. It is long past time to enact term limits for how long a single judge can preside over one case.

How Do We Stop The Deadly Tyranny?

Phyllis Schlafly's new book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How To Stop It, should be required reading for everyone—regardless of political persuasion—who cares about maintaining an America in which the government is still the servant of the people, and not the other way around.

The book is 192 pages long—a manageable read for even the busiest individual. Ms. Schlafly shows how activist judges who render decisions based purely on their own personal preferences, even when those decisions clearly contradict the meaning of the Constitution, are in President Bush’s words, “seeking to remake the culture of America by court order.” These activist judges are fully supported by the far left that shares their radical agenda.

As a result of this kind of judicial sabotage, we've seen the foundations of our society being destroyed by unelected, unaccountable federal judges (and in some cases, even by state judges who have to face the voters on election day but who rely on the faulty memory of the electorate to keep them in office).

This systematic onslaught includes the elimination of public acknowledgment of God and respect for the sanctity of life; weakening the requirement for elections to be conducted according to mutually agreed-upon rules; destroying basic standards of decency in society; dispensing with morally proportionate punishments for crime; undermining enforcement of immigration laws; eroding the self-evident concept that marriage is between a man and a woman; and most recently, denying government protection for the disabled who are unable to speak for themselves.

None of these travesties would have a chance of being approved at the ballot box, and the left-wing “revolutionaries” know it. That’s why they have seized on the courts as a way to impose their radical cultural overhaul on America.

In her book, Ms. Schlafly traces the history of the Constitution, designed to enshrine our God-given rights and provide a coherent framework where government functions only by the consent of the governed. She shows how leftist elites, on the other hand, believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that should “evolve” according to the whims of changing attitudes and according to the dictates of supremacist courts.

Taken to its logical conclusion, such a system destroys “liberty and justice for all” and replaces it with liberty for some and tyranny for most.

Thankfully, the final chapter of the book offers possible remedies, including measures to remove court jurisdiction over issues such as the acknowledgment of God (as inTen Commandments and Pledge of Allegiance cases); an amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman; Congress taking seriously its authority to impeach judges who engage in blatant judicial activism; the requirement for a two-thirds vote for judges to declare a law unconstitutional; and prohibiting the expenditure of federal funds to enforce outrageous rulings.

The only way such steps will be taken is for the American public to overwhelmingly demand it by electing representatives committed to terminating the abuse of judicial authority.

Call to Action

Readers will also want to know about Eagle Forum’s Court Watch, an organization dedicated to building in America a federal judiciary that is respectful of, and responsible to, the U.S. Constitution.

Included in its mission statement is a five-point plan for the future that endeavors to (1) promote the confirmation of constitutionalist judges; (2) eliminate any and all judicial power to tax; (3) reduce the size of the bloated judiciary; (4) defederalize the bulk of America’s criminal law; and (5) require a unanimous vote of a three-judge federal panel to invalidate citizen-passed initiatives.

Court Watch’s immediate goal is to vigorously promote the confirmation of constitutionalist judges and to continue educating the public concerning all five objectives. The organization works in the nation’s capital and all across the country to mobilize and educate Americans in a positive, proactive battle to dethrone the “imperial judiciary.”

Learn what you can do to make a difference. Go to www.eagleforum.org (choose “Court Watch” from the options at the top of the screen) to get more information on how you can become involved.

#####