Ann Coulter: Who Was the Second Choice?

Human Events Online ^ | October 19, 2005 | Ann Coulter

[bigsky]

I have finally hit upon a misdeed by the Bush Administration so outrageous, so appalling, so egregious, I am calling for a bipartisan commission with subpoena power to investigate: Who told the President to nominate Harriet Miers? The commission should also be charged with getting an answer to this question: Who was his second choice?

Things are so bad, the best option for Karl Rove now would be to get himself indicted. Then at least he'd have a colorable claim to having no involvement in the Miers nomination.

This week's Miers update is:

(1) Miers is a good bowler (New York Times, Oct. 16, 2005, front page–Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget: "'She is a very good bowler"), which, in all honesty, is the most impressive thing I've heard about Miers so far.

(2) In 1989, she supported a ban on abortion except to save the life of the mother.

From the beginning of this nightmare, I have taken it as a given that Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I assume that's why Bush nominated her. (It certainly wasn't her resume.) Pity no one told him there are scads of highly qualified judicial nominees who would also have voted against Roe. Wasn't it Harriet Miers' job to tell him that? Hey, wait a minute . . .

But without a conservative theory of constitutional interpretation, Miers will lay the groundwork for a million more Roes. We're told she has terrific "common sense." Common sense is the last thing you want in a judge! The maxim "Hard cases make bad law" could be expanded to "Hard cases being decided by judges with 'common sense' make unfathomably bad law."

It was "common sense" to allow married couples to buy contraception in Connecticut. That was a decision any randomly selected group of nine good bowlers might well have concurred with on the grounds that, "Well, it's just common sense, isn't it?"

But when the Supreme Court used common sense–rather than the text of the Constitution–to strike down Connecticut's law banning contraception, it opened the door to the Supreme Court’s rewriting all manner of state laws By creating a nonspecific "right to privacy," Griswold v. Connecticut led like night into day to the famed "constitutional right" to stick a fork in a baby's head.

This isn't rank speculation about where "common sense" devoid of constitutional theory gets you: Miers told Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) she would have voted with the majority in Griswold.

(Miers also told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.)–in front of witnesses–that her favorite justice was "Warren," leaving people wondering whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, memorialized in "Impeach Warren" billboards across America, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, another mediocrity praised for his "common sense" who voted for Roe v. Wade and was laughed at by Rehnquist clerks like John Roberts for his lack of ability.)

The sickness of what liberals have done to America is that so many citizens – even conservative citizens – seem to believe the job of a Supreme Court justice entails nothing more than "voting" on public policy issues. The White House considers it relevant to tell us Miers' religious beliefs, her hobbies, her hopes and dreams. She's a good bowler! A stickler for detail! Great dancer! Makes her own clothes!

That's nice for her, but what we're really in the market for is a constitutional scholar who can forcefully say, "No -- that's not my job."

We've been waiting 30 years to end the lunacy of nine demigods on the Supreme Court deciding every burning social issue of the day for us, loyal subjects in a judicial theocracy. We don't want someone who will decide those issues for us – but decide them "our" way. If we did, a White House bureaucrat with good horse sense might be just the ticket.

Admittedly, there isn't much that's more important than ending the abortion holocaust in America. (Abortionist casualties: 7. Unborn casualties 30 million.) But there is one thing. That is democracy.

Democracy sometimes leads to silly laws such as the one that prohibited married couples from buying contraception in Connecticut. But allowing Americans to vote has never led to crèches being torn down across America. It's never led to prayer being purged from every public school in the nation. It's never led to gay marriage. It's never led to returning slaves who had escaped to free states to their slave masters. And it's never led to 30 million dead babies.

We've gone from a representative democracy to a monarchy, and the most appalling thing is–even conservatives just hope like the dickens the next king is a good one.

[Peach]

A mindless personal attack? Who are you kidding?

Coulter has been personally attacking Miers for weeks. If it wasn't for women like Miers who paved the way for caustic, uber thin, asexual women like Coulter, she wouldn't have a job.

[Havoc]

I truly love the way this woman thinks sometimes. Other times, I just admire her brilliance. LOL

[AndyJackson]

One of the problems with the argument you make is that our understanding of the Constitution must be based on what was meant by "secure in our person, papers houses and effects." You may think it is merely what the Constitution says it is, but in fact, this, like most other concepts in the Constitution is grounded in the English common law concepts of the time, and "my home is my castle" is a much more secure British concept than it is an American one. Part of the differnece in history is that the British sent bansished their overly nosey Puritans to this side of the ocean.

Try all you want, when you argue that there is no right to privacy, you and I part ways. Feel free to go your way, but none of the secular constitutional conservatives will follow you.

For instance, I believe that sexual practices between consenting adults are a matter of privacy covered under a right to privacy, and that any search or seizure related thereto would be illegal regardless of warrant or statutory law banning the practice.

No one has argued the the right to privacy covers the right to commit what all of us would regard as felonies, i.e. rape or murder. The issue of prostitution normally comes into court because of public solicitation, not what happens in the privacy of one's home.

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"You would think by now that [Anne] the "ditsy diva of divisive discourse" would have learned that the United States of America is a representative constitutional republic."

I thought it was a representative, democratic republic.

[Ol' Sparky]

And, if the direction of the Supreme Court doesn't change, whose fault is it? It's the fault of the Forrest Gump conservatives that allowed Bush to appoint a stealth nominee with no proven track record. Been there, done that. It's a strategy that has failed for 25 or more years. Republican Presidents have nominated seven of the nine justice on the Supreme Court are responsible for the judicial tyranny that results from it.

[eleni121]

I must agree with your assessment...about the "cheap whores" I mean.

Can't they just once keep their yaps shut? Babble is overwhelming reason. It just seems to me that every Tom Dick and Ann incessantly complains about Ms Myers about herr academic credentials to her lack of having served on
"superior courts"

As I have said, I would rather NOT have a judge appointed who has spent his/her life on the bench at any level.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Testimony in the broad sense. If you don't care for Senator Specter's version of the meeting then by all means ignore it. I personally tend to want to find out both positive and negative attributes about nominees to a lifetime appointment. It seems you only care to hear about the few positives and that is your choice. But you'll wind up reading about every third word regarding Ms. Miers. Every new piece of data makes this nomination seem increasingly ill-advised and ill-considered and a betrayal of the promise to the conservative base to appoint nominees in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. And every new attempted defense by the White House looks weaker and sillier since they don't and can't address the actual substantive criticisms of Ms. Miers and her qualifications for the position.

[AndyJackson]

I suspect that your definition of "most" is far more slippery than is the normal definition of privacy.

In fact, there is a common law tort called invasion of privacy, meaning that the term does have a well-enough established legal definition, accumulated over the centuries and millenia that one can sue for it in a court of law and collect damages.

[shhrubbery!]

the incorrect dates for when her bar membership was suspended and the mischaracterization of how promptly the non-payment was remedied etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Good grief. What picayune stuff. NR should be ashamed.

What does that have to do with whether we believe Arlen Specter's account of what Miers said, or Dan Coats's?

Sheesh, the way people here who wouldn't normally give ol' Arlen the time of day, are now putting all their stock in him, is breathtaking.

[Sam Cree]

"Common sense is the last thing you want in a judge!"

I like Ann, and she may well be right about Miers, but if the Constitution isn't a common sense document, then I've never seen one.

[Sam Hill]

"Coulter has been personally attacking Miers for weeks."

I realize it is a waste of time to try to have an honest discourse with you, but I would bet you can't produce "one personal attack" Coulter has made on Miers.

Coulter has stated in various ways that she does not believe Miers is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. That is not a personal attack. In fact, Coulter has said she suspects Miers if a fine person.

Iowa Granny's post is a personal attack, based on false information. It was vicious and ill-informed. Not an uncommon characteristic on recent Coulter threads, by the way.

[mountainfolk]

Bowling and hero worship are additional assets, not qualifications for this particular job. Hero worship is your put down term for both President Bush and Harriet Miers. I would call their feelings toward each other 'mutual respect'. I myself marvel that President Bush just keeps on doing his job, in spite of attacks from left and right. The anti Miers coalition are not the only people who supported and voted for President Bush. Me being one person who actually physically worked for his election and reelection. The animus from the beginning of these attacks on Miers has obviously been against President Bush and a variety of issues that long preceded her nomination. A hearing and a vote is all that is required for this nominee to be confirmed or not. The senators making the decision were not elected by Pres Bush but are the direct responsibility of the voters who put them there. The President considered the political realities of either a vacant SC seat, or a candidate who could likely make it thru the minefield of true constitutional concern and plain political obstructionism. SD O'Connor is not going to continue to be the pawn while everybody plays their game. She already needs to be with her husband, where I would have been long ago.

[shhrubbery!]

If you don't care for Senator Specter's version of the meeting then by all means ignore it.

And if you don't care for former Senator Dan Coats's version of the meeting, then by all means you ignore it.

Actually, to put Specter's credibility with conservatives on the same level as Coats's is laughable.

[Shalom Israel]

Try all you want, when you argue that there is no right to privacy, you and I part ways.

I missed the post where you defined privacy in such a way that we know what things you're allowed to do in "your castle" without government interference, but which also accounts for the fact that murdering someone in "your castle" can be illegalized. If you tried, you would of course realize that "private" really means, "The government can't ban anything I don't want them to ban," which is of course circular. For example:

For instance, I believe that sexual practices between consenting adults are a matter of privacy covered under a right to privacy...

You appear to be claiming that Washington and Jefferson legalized prostitution. I have the darndest feeling you're wrong about that.

The issue of prostitution normally comes into court because of public solicitation, not what happens in the privacy of one's home.

Okay, I wasn't imagining it--you really do have the idea that the framers legalized prostitution. That's checkable, you know. We should have plenty of case law illustrating the Constitutional protection of voluntary prostitution conducted in non-public places.

No one has argued the the right to privacy covers the right to commit what all of us would regard as felonies, i.e. rape or murder.

Yup, that's the circular reasoning thing I warned you about. "The right to privacy means I have a right to do anything that I should be allowed to do in private." In other words, "the government can't outlaw anything it can't outlaw." Try defining what those things are. Be chagrined.

[DTogo]

I myself am all for Harriet, but I sure won't deny, nor will I begrudge, any Conservative who might think otherwise.

Exactly. What's wrong an exchange of differing ideas and some dialogue within Conservative circles?

BTW, Ann really isn't my type. I'm a Kiran Chetry or Megyn Kendall kinda guy. Megyn would be a nice (looking) choice for a SCOTUS judge! ;)

[DTogo]

Yep, we don't need stealth on this!

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"See how easy it is to be dismissive and condescending of the accomplishments of others?"

That's what's bugging me. Here we have an accomplished woman willing to serve her country on the court. Until now she's been respected by all her peers. Then suddenly whamo....she's a "cleaning lady." It is not right to treat people that way.

[republicofdavis]

Well, it's not easy to identify lots of things, but we manage. We can identify speech, we can identify the practice of religion and we can identify privacy.

It seems to me that you're saying that if there can be a limit on a right (i.e. we all understand that we can't kill someone in our bedroom) that there is no right. But there are limits on all the rights to some degree, such as time, place and manner restrictions on the freedom of speech.

[COEXERJ145]

Coulter has been personally attacking Miers for weeks.

The lamest was when Coulter said Miers wasn't qualified to be on the Supreme Court because Miers went to SMU instead of Harvard. By this Coulter was implying that people who go to SMU are simply too stupid to go anywhere else.

[shhrubbery!]

I like your reply, but what's with your tagline?

I think I'll wait for the showdown between Shalom Israel and Harriet Miers, before I make up my mind about your qualifications vs hers.