Keep Your Laws Off My Judiciary! (ann coulter speech from 2001)

You know, there’s a reason I like speaking at college campuses. The environments are so hegemonically liberal that any conservatives you meet really are rebels, tend to be some of the brightest students, and they just wake up in the morning thinking, "What can we do to annoy liberals today?" Apparently bringing me to speak is one of the popular options.

Politics has gotten a little bit boring recently, what with the president not being a felon. But I thought I’d tell you all that we can look forward – World War III is coming, with Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee. The New York Times has been nostalgically reminiscing about Clinton’s, quote, "centrist judicial choices," and denouncing the wild-eyed ideologues that President Bush intends to put on the court. Indeed, the whole rainbow coalition is apoplectic in anticipation of George Bush appointing judges who agree with him rather than them.

Ralph Nies [phonetic], President of People for the American Way, has said, "There is more at stake in these nominations than ever before in our history." Now, first of all, can you imagine the hue and cry if an actually patriotic organization called itself "People For the American Way"? But moreover, evidently there aren’t a lot of Americans who are for the American way, otherwise liberals wouldn’t need Federal Judges to invent ludicrous constitutional rights, jamming the American way down our throats. Nies, along with the ACLU, the ABA, La Rosa [phonetic], and the rest of the rainbow coalition, including the most vicious left-wing propaganda machine of all, the media, insist that their Soviet agitprop has nothing to do with politics. They evaluate judicial nominees, they claim, solely on the basis of their respect for constitutional rights. As Nies says, "The Senate owes its first allegiance to the American people and to the Constitution."

By Constitution, he means every crackpot, quote, "right" liberals have been able to sneak into Supreme Court opinions in the last fifty years. And there are lots of them. Rights for killers, pornographers, stinky homeless people, transsexuals, and non-smokers.

The "Constitution," the Constitution is in quotes, that is, is oddly silent, however, on the rights of babies, crime victims, and property owners. But liberals can’t admit that what they mean by constitutional rights is a collection of ideological victories completely unconnected to the language of the Constitution. Otherwise, the America people would really be against the American way. So liberals speak in code.

Constitutional rights means the entire ideological agenda of the ACLU, privacy rights means sticking a fork in a baby’s head, ideologue means people who don’t see anything about fetus brains in the Constitution, moderate is someone who believes the Constitution strictly prohibits punishing criminals, and centrist means certifiably insane. Now New York Times editorials will make sense to you.

Centrist law professor, Cass Sunstein [phonetic], of the University of Chicago, wrote an hysterical jeremiad in The New York Times about the danger of conservative judges who, quote, "would interpret the Constitution in a way that would promote their agenda." But the only agenda conservatives have is for the Court to stop making stuff up and calling it constitutional rights. The conservative "agenda," is to return to a constitutional democracy so we can live in freedom and decide most issues for ourselves. Like the rules of golf.

Hallucinating history, just like their pet judges hallucinate constitutional rights, Sunstein complained about the "Republican juggernaut, blocking Clinton’s centrist nominees." I happen to have noticed that although moderate and mainstream are also popular favorites, centrist really is the leading trendy term for a crazy person.

Sunstein says Republicans, quote, "did whatever they could to block Mr. Clinton’s judicial nominees. Meanwhile," he says, "Democratic Senators, unwilling to face rejection of nominees on political disagreements, have usually deferred to Republican presidents." They must have hated Clarence Thomas just because he was black. But Sunstein insists, Democrats have been, quote, "remarkably passive." One more definition, passive means willing to start World War III.

One of Clinton’s centrist judges, Judge Lee Sarakin [phonetic], found that a homeless man had a constitutional right to stink up a library. And frighten patrons with his obsessive staring. The library’s offensive odor ban violated the First Amendment. Apparently because it was a library and there are books in libraries and there’s speech in books and speech is protected by the First Amendment.

The no stinking up the place rule also violated substantive due process - which doesn’t exist - because the odor rule was a reader based restriction and it violated equal protection – which does exist – because of the disparate impact on patrons of the library. People who refuse to bathe, for example, were more likely to stink than people who did bathe.

In a rousing summary that will go down in history with Justice Holmes’ "three generations of imbeciles are enough," Judge Sarakin wrote that, "Instead of hoping to shield our eyes and ears from the homeless, we should revoke their condition, not their library cards." The Senate confirmed Sarakin’s appointment to the Supreme Court, 63 to 35, in October 1994, and as a footnote to centrist Judge Sarakin – he was appointed to the Third Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. He requested that he be allowed to sit, to move his office to California. The Third Circuit unaccountably denied this request and he retired.

Another Clinton centrist judge, Harold Bahr [phonetic], received nationwide attention a few years ago for his ruling that there was no probable cause to arrest suspects who flee at the sight of police while loading large bags into the trunk of their car in a high drug trafficking area. Bahr explains that in that neighborhood, and I quote, "The police are viewed as corrupt, abusive, and violent. Consequently, there was nothing suspicious about running at the sight of them."

In addition to any vague feelings of ill will the suspects may have had toward law enforcement, they evidently also had reason to flee that night on account of the 80 pounds of cocaine in their possession. This, Judge Bahr excluded from evidence. He later reversed himself, but only because it was an election year and he was about to become the Willy Horton of that presidential campaign. The Republican juggernaut, against Clinton’s centrist judges, led to a unanimous Senate confirmation for Judge Bahr.

On the basis of her habit of apologizing to criminals during sentence, District Court Judge Sonya Sotamayor [phonetic] had earned wide acclaim as a centrist long before Clinton elevated her to the appellate court. While sentencing one drug dealer, she said, quote, "We all understand that you were in part a victim of economic necessities in our society. Unfortunately, there are laws that I must impose." She told another convicted drug trafficker, "It is no comfort for me to say that I am -- for you – for me to say that I am deeply, personally sorry about the sentence I must impose because the law requires me to do so. The only statement I can make is this, this is one more example of an abomination being committed before our sight. You do not deserve this, sir." It may have been the "sir" that kept it from being unanimous. Sotamayor was confirmed to the Second Court of Appeals in a 68 to 28 vote.

Judge Diane Wood, a centrist Clinton appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, found that failure to provide a prisoner with a smoke-free environment constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Judge Robert Henry held that it was cruel and unusual punishment not to provide a transsexual prisoner with sex hormone treatment and therapy. Judge Michael on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, another Clinton centrist judge, found that basing salary determinations on the basis of performance was discriminatory. We knew it would come to that some day. Merit is discriminatory.

I brought many more in hopes that the next speaker would be late. But I do want to get to question and answer, so I’ll wrap now and conclude with, every time you hear the words "centrist," "moderate," or "mainstream," remember, this is what they mean. Thank you.

Yes, but I think I would ruin their chances of confirmation if I said so, if I named them. I’ve offered to some of my friends if they’re nominated for a judgeship I will publicly attack them, if necessary. And let me think if there’s anything I could say about that.

Well – no, I can’t destroy anyone by naming names. Maybe I should name the moderate ones I don’t want on. But I would like to point out that it really is unfair – uh, I used the "f" word – it really is untrue, let me phrase it that way, the comparison between judicial – or conservative judges and liberal judges. It’s not as if conservative judges are hallucinating their own constitutional rights that happen to be conservative.

Somehow, our judges never discover, you know, in the penumbras and emanations, a right to a flat tax, a right to voucher schools, you know, a right to suck the brains out of Democrats. What liberal judges do is discover constitutional rights that promote the entire agenda of the ACLU. This is -- getting the ideal Supreme Court that I would design is still Dunkirk, it’s not D-Day for conservatives. All that happens is, important issues that people care about get sent back to the states and you can vote on abortion or whatever it is, or golf rules, however you’d like. It is a false equation to describe conservative judicial nominees as being like the liberal judicial nominees, which shows you how unpopular liberals now – the American Way – actually is.

In one of the most obvious contradictions, but propaganda always contains contradictions, Republicans are constantly being harangued and told the abortion issue is killing us at the polls. But meanwhile, apparently, they believe that if Roe v. Wade is overruled, as I believe it will be, and the issue is sent back so that Americans can actually vote on abortion, Americans will vote to outlaw it. If they believed abortion was so popular out there in America, they wouldn’t fear the overturning of Roe v. Wade, they’d welcome it. "Ah, let’s put it to a vote." But no, they never want these issues put to a vote. They don’t even want, you know, private golf associations deciding their own rules. They really think they’re just, you know, a roving band of philosophers to decide any problem that comes their way, any jackass bedwetting case. "Oh, no, we have the answer." Now, what a conservative judge rules is that unless it’s in the constitution, we don’t have the answer, we live in a democracy and you can decide the issue for yourselves.

"Wouldn’t it make sense if we’re trying t put forth the argument that conservatives aren’t inventing law, they’re just interpreting the Constitution as is, and recognizing that it would be possible to invent conservative law to refuse to identify justices, such as Scalia, who are merely upholding the Constitution as written, as being conservative?"

No, I agree with that. In fact, you just reminded me of my all-time favorite personal solution for how to – for one thing, explain to the American people what this difference is, but also to teach liberals the virtue of strict constructionism. And that is, I mean, it occurred to me with the unpleasantness under Clinton, liberals never understand a bad legal policy or a bad rule until it’s applied to them, against their guys. And consequently, what I’d really like is to get five Supreme Court Justices – maybe just an appellate court, but the Supreme Court would really be so much better, who just for a while would be true conservative judicial activists, and would start discovering, in the penumbras of the emanations of the Fourteenth Amendment, unstated, but that it’s an evolving constitution, a right to things like a flat tax. I mean, why doesn’t that violate the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition on slavery? We have to work for someone else. We don’t get the fruits of our labor. I mean, it seems to me that is less of a jump than a right to stick a fork in a baby’s head from whatever amendment, you know, penumbras and emanations that don’t exist, so you know, for about six months they could make up rights, giving Republicans everything they want, discovering it in the penumbras and emanations, and then they could admit the whole thing was a joke and we could go back to living under a Constitution.

I certainly hope so. And I’m glad you asked that, because I mean it seems to me that’s what he’s looking for. Now that he’s president, I think much more highly of his father than I did when his father was president. At least, he produced this son. But it’s noticeable – it seems to me it’s noticeable that the present President Bush, 43, is going out of his way not to make the mistakes his father made. His father’s biggest mistake was, of course – well, Justice Souter. After Justice Souter, breaking his pledge not to raise taxes, and what is the first thing President Bush puts through? A tax cut. I don’t want to call Dan Quayle a mistake, because I’m not a liberal, but Dan Quayle was made fun of for whatever reason, and who does George Bush pick? You know, Mr. Gravitas, Dick Cheney. Souter is, in fact, the biggest mistake President Bush made, and it’s my impression that Bush will go out of his way not to make a mistake like that again.

I MC’d a dinner for Carl Rove about a month ago, and sat with some of Bush’s guys in the White House, and I told them, "President Bush could raise taxes, randomly bomb foreign countries, inflation could go up and employment down, as long as you appoint another Scalia or Thomas and not another Souter, and then all will be forgiven."

"You joked about the PGA ruling, but my feeling about that was that it was the worst ruling in the century because it’s started meddling beyond – it brought judicial meddling to a new level. Do you agree?"

Yes, in fact I’m going to write about it this week, and I couldn’t agree more. I mean, not the worst of the century. I think Roe v. Wade remains an all-time – my all-time favorite for stupid judicial rulings, but I mean, the PGA decision is – it is sort of a beautiful exam – it is Roe v. Wade. This is the way to explain the problem with Roe v. Wade to Americans. Precisely because it is about something so silly rather than something so important. And it was somewhat amazing to me that in the tv discussions of this, and in the newspaper discussions of this, all you heard people talking about was whether or not they thought it was a good decision. Even if it was a good decision and I’d remark that all of the golf pros, the people who brought golf to America, they said it was the wrong decision, this really is tyranny if the Supreme Court can go around deciding any issue that happens to come its way, and it’s no less tyrannical because it’s about something silly like golf.

I mean, under what basis do they conceive that they have the right to be deciding a private organization’s participation rules? And what kind of bully is this Casey Martin? I hope golfers will not buy products endorsed by Casey Martin, and someday if the Senate blocks any out-of-the-mainstream judges President Bush sends to the Supreme Court, someday when Americans are really fully no longer living under a Constitution and freedom, Casey Martin will be one of the important milestones for taking this dispute with the PGA to the Supreme Court. I mean, I can’t imagine even having that enter my head. Even if it were an outrageous ruling, in contradistinction to what all of the golfers say, I mean, unfairness happens sometimes, which is why we refer to it as the "f" word.

There is unfairness out there, and I just can’t imagine having a private organization not allowing me in and deciding oh well, I’m just going to take it to the Supreme Court, I’m going to bully my fellow Americans. Casey Martin has taken away all of our freedom. Yeah, it’s PGA this time, but this means they can step in and decide any employment decision or customer decision they described -- in order to come to this ruling as part of the foolishness leading up to the tyranny, they described the participants in the PGA as customers of the PGA and the PGA a public accommodation. I mean, on that theory it’s hard to see any limits on the Supreme Court’s authority. It could certainly decide the guests on a show like "Politically Incorrect," for example, I mean, that is a very similar example, we, the guests, are customers of a public accommodation, as much as Casey Williams is a customer of the PGA, so you know, why not make a ruling that there are too many attractive, witty, or famous people on "Politically Incorrect," and just start randomly choosing them. I mean, why can’t the Supreme Court decide that now? The legal principle is offensive, and in a way I think it’s a good thing that Americans can see this in the context of something that they’re not so obsessed about what the result is as in the case of Roe v. Wade, but this is a – this is exactly like Roe v. Wade. Except no one will die.

That’s a good question. And it would be easier to answer if the Supreme Court stuck to the Constitution in issuing rulings, you know, you always have to go back to remember what was their made-up reason for that, and does that made-up reason conflict with the made-up reason in this decision? I suppose it’s because this was a federal law, they were interpreting a federal law, it was the federal law that was unconstitutional. At least in the Boy Scouts case. They were only interpreting a state law, and in general the Supreme Court is much more willing to strike down state laws than federal laws, but it was the Americans With Disability Act that they were, quote, "interpreting" for the PGA decision.

"Do you think that there’s a possibility that the Democratic control of the Senate will simply refuse to confirm any of Bush’s not conservative nominees and if that happens, what do you think should be done?"

Yeah, I’m glad you asked that. Because, for one thing, either everyone at The New York Times is an idiot and doesn’t understand the Senate, or they’re engaging in propaganda. I’ll let you be the judge. Point one, and this wasn’t your question but I do want to get to it, nothing has changed in the Senate. All that matters in the Senate are votes. I don’t know how many of you are on Senate versus House side, it makes a little bit of a difference on the House side, who has the majority actually makes a very, very big difference, which is why the party – when Republicans finally came into the majority in the House in 1995, they were really mean to the Democrats. They’d been suffering for 60 years under a Democrat majority. Whereas the Senate, you know, they’re the collegial guys. They’re collegial. It’s always easy to bollox things up in the Senate and Senator Jeffords was always a liberal, he will continue to be a liberal. He voted against Reagan’s tax cut, he voted against Clarence Thomas, he opposed Bush’s tax cut of course, he’s pro-abortion, he was for Hillary Clinton’s socialist health care bill. Even the Democrats opposed that. So nothing has changed in the Senate. I mean, these gleeful reports leading every New York Times article about this huge, you know, sea change in the United States Senate, nothing has changed – okay, chairmanships have changed, a few egos may be bruised, but how much Democrats can bollox things up now has really changed very, very little. All that matters in the Senate are votes, and they always had Jeffords’ vote.

But as for – and frankly, I wish the other ones, the other Northeastern, quote, "Republicans" would go too, because the advantage of this is we no longer have to apologize for the United States Senate. As soon as, you know, this Senate came in, every radio show I did I kept saying, "Stop calling it a Republican Senate, it’s not a Republican Senate. You know, there just happen to be six or seven Democrats who call themselves Republicans, but this is not a Republican Senate." And now we won’t have to take the blame. I mean, you always hear people saying, "Oh, even the Republican Senate did this." No. It’s not a Republican Senate, it has not been a Republican Senate, and whatever Jeffords can call himself a kumquat, it won’t make a difference to the votes. And he might.

And as for what they’re going to do, I think we’ve seen a taste of it with Ted Olson, and a little bit with Attorney General Ashcroft. One interesting thing about the opposition to those two nominees was that -- I’ll have the numbers off slightly, but Ashcroft got through on something like a 42/58 vote, whereas Ted Olson’s vote was really much, much closer for a lower position at Department of Justice, of course, because Attorney General is number one, which actually sort of surprised me. It turns out they love Clinton more than they hate Christians. Which if I had been trying to map out the liberals’ hatreds and loves, that one would have surprised me.

But the way they go after someone like Ted Olson is to accuse him of conspiring with people, attempting to commit journalism, and Clinton journalism, conspiring to commit dinner with people who didn’t vote for Clinton, and they just – they always do this, they say things in conspiratorial tones. If you read through, and you can look this up on the Internet, Senator Leahy’s statement on Ted Olson, I mean it really is a classic of the genre, it’s all these statements like, you know, so and so does not deny that he had dinner with Ted Olson. And you know, the phraseology makes it sound like he’s talking about the mob. But then you look at what the offense is, and it literally is, you know, conspiring to commit journalism, and they do a lot the same thing with Ashcroft, it’s all of these conspiratorial tones about the Christians he’s been hanging up.

A front page article on the New York Times – this is all described in my upcoming book – actually described Ashcroft as one of – something like, you know, the top lieutenant, one of the top members of the religious right. Are they giving out membership cards at the religious right? Because, you know, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think George Bush is a Christian, and a president is higher than the attorney general, so actually this is not the top position for a Christian in the Bush administration. And if religious right means something other than Christian, I’ve spent about 70 pages in my next book trying to figure out what that is.

But that’s what it’ll be, conspiratorial tones. There may be, as there usually is, you know, drive-by mudslinging, just completely invented attacks, for which there is no substantiation. And you end up, you know, contesting the truth of the matter as with Ted Olson, "No, I didn’t have dinner with so and so," because it’s actually a rather clever trick, I must say – they wrap their non-germane offenses in lies and you end up contesting the lie which creates the impression that the underlying apparent offense actually is an offense. As for all of the language about whether Olson had dinner or met with or knew about articles that were being written by the American Spectator, everyone involved at the American Spectator and Ted Olson all testified, submitted statements, confirming everything Ted Olson had said, but then, you know, you get lost in thinking that there’s something wrong with writing articles against the President of the United States, which really despite the behavior of the mainstream media, is not against the law. Any more questions?

"I was wondering if you agreed with life tenure given. We’ve had such a leftist judiciary system right now."

That’s a good question. I do. You know, it reminds me of the question of whether the president’s power should be circumscribed in granting pardons. There seemed to be some movement afoot to do so after it turned out President Clinton was selling pardons but I think the – I think you want to go after the underlying problem and not start fiddling with the Constitution. I mean, it wasn’t just pardons Clinton was selling, he was selling the Lincoln bedroom, he was selling plots in Arlington Cemetery, he was selling access to the president, he was selling – you know, apparently naval bases to the Red Chinese. The problem is he was elected president. That’s really the underlying problem, and I think it’s the same thing with judges.

Life tenure is fine and a bulwark normally against political vicissitudes. The problem is the judges who are appointed, who suddenly, upon being elevated to the bench, decide they’d rather be philosopher-kings than judges.

"I just wanted to get a brief opinion from you of the – according to CNN today, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision that it will now allow mental handicaps to be used as a determination in restrictions on the death penalty in the United States, and I just wanted to get your feedback on that."

MS. COULTER: I’m glad you asked that. I had not read the decision, I did not know about the decision. But I have noticed that, you know, after a ten-year campaign of The New York Times and the mainstream media insisting that IQ was an artificial construct, denouncing Charles Murray’s book, The Bell Curve, IQ means nothing, it means nothing, suddenly, when it comes to blocking the death penalty, you know, they’re talking about people being retarded. When do they ever use that term unless they’re trying to prevent, as I say – wait, where was it, in our definitions – yes, moderates believes Constitution strictly prohibits punishing criminals. They’ll do anything, as in the Florida election case, when they, you know, sell out minorities, literally, I mean just openly accusing minorities of not understanding the ballot in order to try to get Gore in, now, you know, they’ll turn on a dime. That is, as I say, one of the earmarks of propaganda, wild contradictions. And they will do anything to stop the death penalty, including, suddenly, acknowledging the concept of IQ. Thank you.

I remember seeing Ann deliver this talk on television, and the thing that struck me hardest was how much fun she was having, just talking to the young people who'd come to hear her, Christina Hoff Sommers, and the other invitees of the Clare Booth Luce Institute. I admire her for her clarity and brassy manner, and I envy her ability to enjoy work that a lot of other people would find terminally wearing.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

Washington's Farewell Address

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

"The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism" . . . and our experience is that the spirit of encroachment starts with the PR power of the journalism (and the rest of the entertainment industry) and corrupts "all departments" to go along and get along, politically and socially.

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.