Judicial Tyranny? - Ann Coulter

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 12/04/03 | Ann Coulter

[kattracks]

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.

---

Ann Coulter is a bestselling author and syndicated columnist. Her most recent book is Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.

[.45MAN]

ping

[weegee]

The same people who believe that the Constitution is a living document, subject to changes without ammendment, are probably also of the mind that the Supreme Court is infallible. While many Catholics are of this opinion with regards to Papal decisions, there are probably as great a percentage of Americans who believe this to be true of the Supreme Court.

If it is a "living document" and rights can be found that are not specified, is it possible for rights (specified or not) that we have always exercised to be "taken away"? The gun grabbers sure seem to think that the 2nd Ammendment doesn't say what it says and that it is outdated anyway.

[Indie]

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.

What a genius this woman is. Thanks for posting it!

It is in fact obvious, we are now living under a judicial dictatorship...a judicial oligarchy if you will.
This can mean one of two things:
1. The past recent presidents have been amazingly stupid
2. There really IS a conspiracy to bring us down right here among our "own."

[At _War_With_Liberals]

2. There really IS a conspiracy to bring us down right here among our "own."

[jazzlite]

Ann has described the process through which America will be destroyed..We are very far down the road already and the "folks" are just now getting a glimmer of understanding about what is going on. Are we finding out in time to save our nation? I do not know. With Hollywood organizing to promote the continuation of the destructive process with the help of a non-citizen, the very rich Mr. Storos, and a judiciary making our laws without opposition, most people will slide into helplessness until the oppression knocks directly on their own door. Folks, it is not the terrorists who are the danger to freedom.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

There are lots of folks, including Conservatives that have begun to view Ann as some sort of wild-eyed, unbalanced radical because....

...she's willing to speak the truth.

What separates America from Afghanistan, from Iraq, from Iran, or even Great Britain? If I curse the Queen in Britain, I could literally be arrested. If I curse the Mullah in Iran, I could be stoned. How are we different, and why?

Ann has hit the target squarely. It's not just the "rule of law", but the CONSTITUTIONAL rule of law. We have a law so basic that all citizens have ostensibly endorsed, one only endorsed by men but granted by God alone, one that no politician or judge should violate without forfeiting their legitimacy to govern or rule altogether. It's in black and white. It is simple to understand.

And, tragically, it has been ignored by Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, and most criminally of all, the watch dogs whose primary mandate is to watch over it, the Federal Judiciary.

If they have so forfeited their legitimacy by passing laws, issuing Executive orders, or issuing rules which are clearly unconstitutional on their face, by what right to they continue to "serve" and rule over the American people?

It is by rule of force and might, and nothing else.

So, if someone is so bold as to say that it is understandable how citizens might resort to violence, since their Constitutionally guaranteed rights have been violated with impunity, they'll join Ann in reputation, and quite probably be tossed off FR by JimRob for fear of government prosecution or civil persecution. The only argument against violence is that we still through a Constitutionally protected ballot, a method to achieve democratic, peaceful change.

Unless, of course there is a hanging chad, or the dead rise to vote, or legal technicalities keep your candidate off the ballot, or a Judge rules against you, or someone arrests you under color of authority for exercising your voice in front of the wrong building, operated by the wrong, politically protected organization.

What then?

SFS

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

Folks, it is not the terrorists who are the danger to freedom.

But, of course, you misspoke. You meant to say "Folks, it is not not only terrorists who are a danger to freedom."

To which we can all say, "ditto".

FReegards, SFS

[Indie]

So, if someone is so bold as to say that it is understandable how citizens might resort to violence, since their Constitutionally guaranteed rights have been violated with impunity, they'll join Ann in reputation, and quite probably be tossed off FR by JimRob for fear of government prosecution or civil persecution. The only argument against violence is that we still through a Constitutionally protected ballot, a method to achieve democratic, peaceful change. Unless, of course there is a hanging chad, or the dead rise to vote, or legal technicalities keep your candidate off the ballot, or a Judge rules against you, or someone arrests you under color of authority for exercising your voice in front of the wrong building, operated by the wrong, politically protected organization. What then?

If I shall be kicked off for advocating that of which you speak, then so be it. If I shall be killed for advocating that of which you speak, so be it. For I will then be in the glorious company of heroes and patriots.

Ahh but then when one does a patriot, many flamers follow with the lambs call of he took the law into his own hands. He got what he deserved.
Just as did Adams, Franklin, Henry, Hamilton and Jefferson?
We repeat the founders words about the tree of liberty requiring blood, but then shirk from the responsibility many lifted up before us. IS this still the land of the free and home of the brave?

[thrcanbonly1]

Folks, it is not the terrorists who are the danger to freedom.

But, of course, you misspoke. You meant to say "Folks, it is not not only terrorists who are a danger to freedom."



No, he did not miss-speak, he has it exactly right. The terrorists may be a danger to life and limb, but they in no way constitute a danger to freedom.

[The_Eaglet]

bump for later review

[x1stcav]

Most of the abortionists were shot or, depending upon your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle.

You gotta love this woman.

[Phyto Chems]

bttt

[tm22721]

Put a lid on it, Ann.

I am usually a rabid fan of yours but this is a 'dead' topic in American discourse, so to speak.

BUMP

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

We repeat the founders words about the tree of liberty requiring blood, but then shirk from the responsibility many lifted up before us. IS this still the land of the free and home of the brave?

I have served under arms, yet have never violated the oath I took to defend the Constitution. Sedition and heroism are not the same thing.

If most in this country will not even vote, what excuse do they have that justifies taking up arms. If indeed, there is a ballot, and it is unused, then a revolt by a minority is sedition. Rather than supporting "the tree of liberty", such an minority attempt to thwart democracy by force would represent mere fascism. You would be no better than the leftist and judicial activists who would use a "living" Constitution to enslave us.

However, when we lose the ballot, that indeed is the turning point. In fact, I had to seriously evaluate my own future during the last election. If the Presidency could have been so baldly and boldly stolen in the light of day, if members of the armed services could be disenfranchised to ensure "the proper result" for the political left, then only difficult choices remained. As is, the efforts to minimize the value of a citizens vote by promoting the illegal ballot representation of foreign nationals, skates on extremely thin and dangerous ice.

SFS

[AppauledAtAppeasementConservat]

It would be just dandy if instead of violence in the nation that we could get John Ashecroft to review all the rulings of current judges that are unconstitutional and then have them removed. Or better yet send the to gitmo!

I'm all for kicking these tyrants out by the Justice Department instead of civil war but somehow we conservatives seem to just wanna ride it out and pray for mercy while the rest of us get screwed out of life liberty and the frickin pursuit of happiness. These pukes know that the military is on our side and they are spinless cowards who run to canada everytime something goes down. One big move by ashecroft would send these guys packing. Military is on our side who they gonna get to fight a civil war FEMINISTS? Yeah bring those beyotches on!

[Indie]

We are under the Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is. . . .
—Charles Evans Hughes (Chief Justice of the United States, 1930–1941)

Unlike Congress or the presidency, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a "political" institution. It must remain neutral in order to settle legal issues, interpret laws, and decide the meaning of the Constitution. Supreme Court justices should not allow their personal or political views to color their decisions. Neither should they permit themselves to be influenced by presidents, other politicians, or popular public opinion. To help assure the justices' independence, the Constitution provides that they serve life terms unless they resign, retire, or are removed for misbehavior.

Your post is well-taken. We took the same oath. My post was to promote vigorous discussion, and was rhetorical in nature.

Ann Coulter's column is right on. Is my first paragraph really what the Supreme Court is today? I doubt you'd disagree that it is not.
Let's see...removed for misbehavior....Ok Ann, let's get started.

[Elle Bee]

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.

BAAAWHAHAHAAAAAAAA

Beauty, Brains and Humor in a short skirt

Ann is just one more reason I love this country

.

[Big Giant Head]

Well said.

Bump to find this later.

[carmelanne]

ANTHONY LEWIS
 

Honorable Margaret H. Marshall is Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. A native of South Africa, she graduated from Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg in 1966. In 1966, she was elected as President of the National Union of South African Students, and served in that capacity until 1968, when she came to the United States to pursue her graduate studies. She received a master's degree from Harvard University, and her J.D. from Yale Law School. Chief Justice Marshall was an associate, and later a partner, in the Boston law firm of Csaplar & Bok, and was a partner in the Boston law firm of Choate, Hall & Stewart. Before her appointment to the Supreme Judicial Court, she was Vice President and General Counsel of Harvard University. First appointed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in November, 1996, she was named as Chief Justice in September, 1999, by Governor Paul Cellucci, and began her term on October 14, 1999, following her confirmation by the Governor's Council. Chief Justice Marshall is the second woman to serve on the Supreme Judicial Court in its more than 300-year history, and the first woman to serve as Chief Justice.