Judicial Tyranny? - Ann Coulter

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

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Coulters lavish use of hyperbole weakens her aguments again and again. One can bestow the terms "treason" and "treachery" only so many times, unwarranted, usually ,before one is written off, rightly, as a demagogue.

[evilsmoker]

I'm not sure we are reading the same article. I don't see her telling the other two branches to abuse their power in response to the courts abuse, only that they should refuse to obey an illegal order. The constitution gives the courts the power to interpret the constitution, not the power to rewrite it.

If the court is not following the constitution, their orders are illegal and any attempt to circumvent the orders in a legal manner is futile when they merely change the order to suit the occassion.

On the other hand, the Senate has the explicit power, in the constitution, to remove a judge for misconduct (not following the constitution their sworn to uphold). The executive branch is charged with carrying out the orders of the other two branches but, as we learn from history, following an illegal order does not give one immunity.

[GulliverSwift]

evilsmoker wrote:
"If the court is not following the constitution, their orders are illegal and any attempt to circumvent the orders in a legal manner is futile when they merely change the order to suit the occassion."

This solution wouldn't be a lasting one. Let's just say that somehow a Republican president and Congress decide to void a SCOTUS ruling by ignoring it. What sort of guarantee does Coulter's solution provide us that things won't return to the status quo if the Republicans lose either branch of gov't?

There is none.

The other problem with Coulter's solution is that it is destablizing to our federal republican form of government. Effectively, she is resurrecting the argument of John C. Calhoun--the idea that states & other branches have the right to ignore the rulings and laws of others.

That's right. Who is to say that Coulter's principle wouldn't be applied to acts of Congress? After all, there are plenty of laws on the books right now that are unconstitutional. Does that give states or the prez the ability to violate them with impunity?

Nor is there any agreement as to what constitutes "unconstitutional." Here on FR, we have a general conception of what we would consider to be unconstitutional judicial rulings but those conceptions are totally different from Alan Dersowitch's and Ruth Ginsberg's.

The point is that not only does Coulter's idea provide no guarantees for the future, it also might lead to civil war. I'm not naive to think this might happen anyway, but I think it's unwise to provoke it unecessarily.

That's why my solutions of an amendment explicitly prohibiting courts from deciding new policies (i.e. legislating) is a far better idea. It will also be popular, I'd wager since it will aid all political groups. There are some judges on the right who are activists, this ruling would stop them, helping the left. It's politically neutral so I imagine we'd get a lot of support from yellow and blue dog Democrats.

There could also be a second clause which allows Congress to overrule the decision of any court with a 2/3 majority, subject to approval by the president. Or this could be the amendment by itself.

Or, Congress could restrict the types of cases that federal courts can hear. Since the courts are the creation of the congress (circuit courts and courts of appeal are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution), it has the full legal right and privilege to change what types of cases can be heard before them.

If you stop the cases from being heard at the lower level, this makes it impossible for them to ever make it to the 9 oligarchs. Sort of cutting off the nutjobs at the knees.

[GulliverSwift]

CBB, here's an interesting article from Ann Coulter arguing that states and the other two branches of government should feel free to vacate court rulings (SCOTUS and otherwise).

I think her solution is simplistic, destabilizing and fleeting. What's your take?

[patriot_wes]

"Even when dealing with lawless tyrants, conservatives have a fetish about following the law."

Interesting observation from one of my heros. jeez it feels good to be able to post again now that I'm back from my little inquisition.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

More good stuff from Ann.

To think that today's politics comes down to defending the right of women to kill thier yet born children. I am ceratin that cocept is George Washington was talking about all along.

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt