Supreme Court opinions not private enough

WND ^ | Wednesday, December 03, 2003 | Ann Coulter

[perfect stranger]

The first killing of an abortion doctor by an anti-abortion activist happened in 1993. Since then, six more people have been killed in attacks on abortion clinics, which is fewer people who ended up dead by being in the vicinity of recently released Weatherman Kathy Boudin. Most of the abortionists were shot or, depending upon your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle. This brings the total to: seven abortion providers to 30 million fetuses dead, which is also a pretty good estimate of how the political battle is going.

The nation embarked on its abortion holocaust in 1973, when the Supreme Court astonished the nation by suddenly discovering that the Constitution mandated a right to abortion, despite there being nothing anyplace in the Constitution vaguely hinting at abortion.

Everyone knew the decision in Roe v. Wade was a joke. The decision hinged on the convenient notion of "privacy," which, oddly enough, still fails to protect my right to manufacture methamphetamine, saw off shotgun barrels or euthanize the elderly, privately or otherwise. Even Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has said the decision was wrong.

During oral argument in Roe, the entire courtroom laughed when the lawyer arguing for abortion law ticked off a string of constitutional provisions allegedly violated by Texas' abortion law – the due process clause, the equal protection clause, the Ninth Amendment "and a variety of others." According to the "The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court" by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, the law clerks felt as if they were witnessing "something embarrassing and dishonest" about the decision-making process in Roe, with the justices brokering trimesters and medical judgments like a group of legislators. Never has the phrase "judge, jury and executioner" been more apt than with regard to this landmark ruling.

The nation was so shocked and enraged by the ruling in Roe that ... state legislatures meekly rewrote their laws in accordance with the decision. The Supreme Court building wasn't burned down. No abortion doctors were killed for the next two decades. No state dared ignore the ruling in Roe. Even when dealing with lawless tyrants, conservatives have a fetish about following the law.

Instead, Americans who opposed abortion spent the next 20 years working within the system, electing two presidents, patiently waiting for Supreme Court justices to retire, fighting bruising nomination battles to get three Reagan nominees and two Bush nominees on the court. Then they passed an abortion law in Pennsylvania that was immediately appealed to the Supreme Court. At that point, Republican presidents had made 10 consecutive appointments to the Supreme Court. Surely, now, at long last, Americans would finally be allowed to have a say on the nation's abortion policy.

But the Supreme Court upheld the "constitutional right" to abortion announced in Roe. The decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was written by Reagan's biggest mistake, Sandra Day O'Connor, his third-choice candidate Anthony Kennedy, and "stealth nominee" David Hackett Souter. The court's opinion declared that it was calling "the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution." Eight months later, the first abortion doctor was killed.

Meanwhile, conservatives responded the way conservatives always do. They went back to the drawing board and came up with a plan. It was the same plan that hasn't worked for 30 years: Elect a Republican president, wait for openings on the court and keep your fingers crossed. It's been going swimmingly so far. We can't even get the stunningly brilliant Harvard law graduate and Honduran immigrant Miguel Estrada a spot on a court of appeals.

Having literally gotten away with murder for a quarter century, the court is getting wilder and wilder, deferring to "international law" and issuing nutty pronouncements more appropriate to a NAMBLA newsletter.

In the past few years, federal courts have proclaimed a right to sodomy (not in the Constitution), a right to partial-birth abortion (not in the Constitution), a right not to have a Democratic governor recalled (not in the Constitution), a right not to gaze upon the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse (not in the Constitution), a ban on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (not in the Constitution), and a ban on voluntary student prayers at high-school football games (not in the Constitution).

These bizarre rulings illustrate the notion of the Constitution as a "living document," one which rejects timeless moral principles so as to better reflect the storylines in this week's episode of "Ally McBeal." You may like or dislike the end result of these rulings, but – as subtly alluded to above – none of these rulings come from anything written in the Constitution.

In response to the court's sodomy ruling last term, conservatives are talking about passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's really touching how conservatives keep trying to figure out what constitutional mechanisms are available to force the courts to acknowledge the existence of the Constitution. But what is the point of a constitutional amendment when judges won't read the Constitution we already have? What will the amendment say? "OK, no fooling around – we really mean it this time!"

While conservatives keep pretending we live in a democracy, liberals are operating on the rule of the jungle. The idea of the rule of law is that if your daughter is raped and murdered, you won't go out and kill the guy who did it. In return for your forbearance, you get to vote for the rulers who will see that justice is done. But liberals cheat. They won't let us vote on an increasingly large number of issues by defining the entire universe – abortion, gay marriage, high-school convocations – as a "constitutional" issue.

In what weird parallel universe would Americans vote for abortion on demand, affirmative action, forced busing, licensing of gun owners and a ban on the death penalty? Whatever dangers lurk in a self-governing democracy, the American people have never, ever passed a law that led to the murder of 30 million unborn children.

Judges are not our dictators. The only reason the nation defers to rulings of the Supreme Court is because of the very Constitution the justices choose to ignore. At what point has the court made itself so ridiculous that we ignore it? What if the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to cannibalism? How about fascism? Does the nation respond by passing a constitutional amendment clearly articulating that there is no right to cannibalism or fascism in the Constitution?

Is there nothing five justices on the Supreme Court could proclaim that would finally lead a president to say: I refuse to pretend this is a legitimate ruling. Either the answer is no, and we are already living under a judicial dictatorship, or the answer is yes, and – as Churchill said – we're just bickering over the price.

It would be nice to return to our federalist system of government with three equal branches of government and 50 states, but one branch refuses to live within that system. How about taking our chances with a president and the Congress? Two branches are better than one.

There may be practical difficulties with the president and the states ignoring the court's abortion rulings – though there's nothing unlawful about following the Constitution and I for one would love to see it. But there is absolutely no excuse for the Massachusetts legislature jumping when Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall says "jump."

Marshall, immigrant and wife of New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis, has recently proclaimed a right to gay marriage for all of Massachusetts. She has further demanded that the legislature rewrite the law in accordance with her wishes. One imagines Marshall leaping off the boat at Ellis Island and announcing: "I know just what this country needs! Anthony! Stop defending Pol Pot for five minutes and get me on a court!"

Granted, one can imagine how a woman married to the likes of Anthony Lewis might long for the sanctuary of a same-sex union. But that's no reason to foist it on Massachusetts.

Ms. Marshall has as much right to proclaim a right to gay marriage from the Massachusetts Supreme Court as I do to proclaim it from my column. The Massachusetts legislature ought to ignore the court's frivolous ruling – and cut the justices' salaries if they try it again.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[nickcarraway]

ping

[tpaine]

--- the decision in Roe v. Wade was a joke. The decision hinged on the convenient notion of "privacy," which, oddly enough, still fails to protect my right to manufacture methamphetamine, saw off shotgun barrels or euthanize the elderly, privately or otherwise.
-AnnC-

---

free me wrote:
Ann is pointing out the the hypocripsy of the court in saying one has a right to "privacy" but only when it comes to abortion.
The court believes we don't have a right to privacy when it comes to sawed-off shotguns, drugs, etc.
In no way does Ann give an opinion as to wether she believes these activities are constitutional.
-FM-

---

She claims above that our right to privacy is a joke, and that she doesn't have the right to "euthanize the elderly, privately or otherwise", nor the "right to manufacture methamphetamine, [or] saw off shotgun barrels".

[tpaine]

Everyone knew the decision in Roe v. Wade was a joke.
The decision hinged on the convenient notion of "privacy," which, oddly enough, still fails to protect my right to manufacture methamphetamine,
saw off shotgun barrels
or euthanize the elderly, privately or otherwise.
-AnnC-

---

Hmmm, I've always been of the opinion that it was perfectly Constitutional to make mind altering substances [like booze], for my private use.
[Granted, winemaking can be 'regulated', -- if I sell it]

The same goes for making a 'short' shotgun for home use. If it never leaves my house, what's the harm to society?

Who gave the government the power to 'regulate' the length of shotgun barrels, or make home remedies?


Naturally, "euthanizing the elderly, privately or otherwise", is murder, a criminal act. --- Just as is killing a viable baby..
-- But then Ann has never let a good line stand in her way of making what she sees as a witty point.

She is getting to be the ~joke~ , by trying to claim the government can prohibit guns, drugs, booze, or sexual privacy by simple decree.
Prohibitionism is not conservatism, Ann, -- its authoritarianism.
15 -tpaine-

---

jwalsh07 wrote: You're the joke Paine. A one joke johnny who actually believes that sodomy is an inalienable right worthy of Constitutional protection but believes that the right to life is simply a tenth amendment issue. But what's worse is the indignity you express when the same morons fudge on the second amendment. Live by judicial activism, die by judicial activism.

---

I value the privacy of my home, unlike some sodomy obsessed contol FReekers.

Natually, whenever the control fanatics of either left or right attack the privacy of my bathroom, bedroom, gunroom or bar-room, -- I get indignant.

Learn to deal with it, '07'..

[freedomcrusader]

Yep, the MA legislature should tell the court to go pound sand. Enough is enough.

Andrew Jackson once said:

"John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."

Of course, Marshall was right, but I like Jackson's healthy disrespect of the Supreme Court. We could use a little of that right now.

[Plutarch]

Either the answer is no, and we are already living under a judicial dictatorship, or the answer is yes, and – as Churchill said – we're just bickering over the price.

All the liberal critics have tried and failed, but I, Plutarch, have found Ann Coulter to have a fact wrong!!! The quotation about bickering with a Lady about her price is not attributed to Winston Churchill, but to George Bernard Shaw.

Getting this attribution wrong completely undermines her arguments regarding the perfect tyranny of a hyperactive Judicial Branch.

A story is told about Bernard Shaw that he was sitting next to a woman at a dinner party and asked her: ‘Madam, if I gave you a million pounds, would you have sexual intercourse with me?’ After some thought, the woman said yes, she thought she would. ‘Would you do it for a fiver?’, Shaw then asked. ‘Sir!’ she exclaimed, ‘what kind of woman do you think I am?’ ‘I thought we had established that,’ said Shaw, ‘and we were merely haggling over the price.’

Source

George Bernard Shaw 1856–1950, Irish playwright and critic

[narses]

I pinge the Catholic list, you got a courtesy 'ping' as the poster of the article.

[cpforlife.org]

Great job Ann!!

If you see this, please read
THE MISSING KEY OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT

[cpforlife.org]

This is not just "any" Pro-Life PING, It's an ANN COULTER PRO-LIFE PING!! Woo-Hoo!!

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

She's pointing out the hypocrisy.

[Mr. Silverback]

I value the privacy of my home, unlike some sodomy obsessed contol FReekers.

Realizing that endorsement of sodomy is bad for the country does not make one "sodomy obsessed," it makes one more concerned for the country than one is concerned about phantom bedroom cops. You know, the bedroom cops who are just sitting around eating donuts, waiting for a court to protect marriage so they can come rushing into our bedrooms and arrest us for improper shtupping procedures? Man, they give me nightmares.

I love how libertarian types jump up and down and pretend we're living in a tyranny, not because our courts threaten rights the Founders codified, but because those same courts haven't yet granted us rights the Founders never would have dreamed of giving anybody.

[Askel5]

=== Everyone knew the decision in Roe v. Wade was a joke.


Save David Whoreowitz, perhaps.

[Askel5]

=== despite there being nothing anyplace in the Constitution vaguely hinting at abortion.


When Ann has the time, perhaps she'll take a peek at the 1970 Congressional Record and understand that then-Representative George Bush and the GOP's task force on "Earth Resources and Population" were more than broadly hinting.

[Askel5]

=== It was the same plan that hasn't worked for 30 years: Elect a Republican president,


By George, I think she's got it!

[Askel5]

=== In the past few years, federal courts have proclaimed a right to sodomy (not in the Constitution), a right to partial-birth abortion (not in the Constitution), a right not to have a Democratic governor recalled (not in the Constitution), a right not to gaze upon the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse (not in the Constitution), a ban on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (not in the Constitution), and a ban on voluntary student prayers at high-school football games (not in the Constitution).



All of which kinda pale when you think about the "strict Constitutionalist" decision of our President to fund his federal science projects on "already-been-killed" excess manufacture human beings.

[Askel5]

=== Granted, one can imagine how a woman married to the likes of Anthony Lewis might long for the sanctuary of a same-sex union.


I think Ann should keep her more personal observations to herself.

[tpaine]

I value the privacy of my home, unlike some sodomy obsessed contol FReekers.

Natually, whenever the control fanatics of either left or right attack the privacy of my bathroom, bedroom, gunroom or bar-room, -- I get indignant.

Learn to deal with it..

Realizing that endorsement of sodomy is bad for the country does not make one "sodomy obsessed,"

But ~some~ FReekers are so obsessed, as I specified above. Are you one?

it makes one more concerned for the country than one is concerned about phantom bedroom cops. You know, the bedroom cops who are just sitting around eating donuts, waiting for a court to protect marriage so they can come rushing into our bedrooms and arrest us for improper shtupping procedures? Man, they give me nightmares.

Yes, I can see you have an overactive imagination. Bad symptom. Sleep deprivation can lead to delusions, I've heard.

I love how libertarian types jump up and down and pretend we're living in a tyranny, not because our courts threaten rights the Founders codified, but because those same courts haven't yet granted us rights the Founders never would have dreamed of giving anybody.

I love how anti-liberty types jump to conclusions about libertarians, and pretend they've said things they never have.
Amusingly delusional.