Judicial Tyranny? - Ann Coulter

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

[.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 The gun grabbers sure seem to think that the 2nd Ammendment doesn't say what it says and that it is outdated anyway.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.