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.

[Shalom Israel]

You are not paying attention to the facts. I already said so that it is not visible to the outside.

Um, no you emphatically did not:

"Can the state make it a felony for me to perform jumping jack's naked in my bedroom with the blinds sufficiently closed that other than your long nose prying them open no one would see?"

Taken literally, your statement is asinine, unless you imagine that my "long prying nose" can pass through solid glass. On the assumption that you're talking pure stupidity, one can only read that as a rhetorical exaggeration: namely, that the blinds are "mostly" closed, but that "nosy" people can still see in.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

So you consider an inability to craft a single coherent, cogent sentence-at any point over the course of your life-"picayune stuff?"

Good to know where your priorities lie.

[Shalom Israel]

Correction: I meant, "on the assumption that you're not talking pure stupidity..."

[Peach]

I got a call from a young man who is a political junkie and who had thought Coulter was amusing but she has really turned him off with her ugly mouth.

Ann is foul mouthed and does not help the conservative movement with her rhetoric. She can be funny occasionally, but at the risk of speaking without thinking and getting the facts wrong.

[EternalHope]

This was a witty hit piece.

Her argument, squeezed in between the slings and arrows, was that Harriet may have common sense, and she may be pro-life, but that is not what is needed on the Supreme Court.

Ann is articulate and unafraid to insult her enemy. When that enemy is liberals, I enjoy reading her very much. It won't be very deep, but it will be enjoyably insulting.

As usual, if you were looking for insults delivered with a stilleto wit, this was a fun read. If you were looking for cogent discussion of the Harriet Miers nomination however, forget it. (Except, I suppose, for those who agree with her that common sense on the Supreme Court would be a negative.)

[Sam Hill]

"You claim your wanna be girlfriend never personally attacked Harriet Miers and I give you Ann's OWN words, and you can only act like a third grader."

Because I defend someone who is being smeared she is my wannabe girlfriend. Something you have tried to squeeze in how many times in your inane replies?

And you accuse me of being a third grader? How stupid, but typical.

BTW, I don't think you understand the concept of the term "personal attacks" if you think what you cited rises to same.

But it's clear from this exchange and others I have endured with you that you aren't too bright. Just nasty.

Please don't post to me anymore. A request I have made to you several times in the past. (As the mods know.)

[LibertarianInExile]

"Gee I am sorry you all have such a hard time grasping the concept of a Constitutional Republic that has worked fine for 230 or so years. What Ann WANTS is a monarchy where SHE gets to be queen."

MNJohnnie: You have misrepresented Ann and anyone who disagrees with your President on this board, to the point where you are regularly insulting to and often downright lying about your opponents and their motivations. You certainly have failed to raise ANY rational point disagreeing with those whose view is different, preferring instead to attack the persons of those with whom you so disagree. I think you deserve similar posts in response insulting your character in the same fashion. You have gotten far too few of them.

However, I probably should have asked your permission before posting the unflattering picture of you above. So I must apologize to you, sir, for posting such an uncharacteristically unrepresentative photo.

Next time I'll make sure I get one that reflects your output here, too--then it won't be unflattering because it'll accurately show the amount of horseshit you've dumped on this board.

[AndyJackson]

Get a sense of humor get your nose out of other people's private affairs and then we can converse.

[Labyrinthos]

The First Admendment protects speech. Pornography isn't speech, and doesn't merit the First Admendment's protection.

Where does the Constitution say that porn isn't speech? What if the porn is printed? Is it then protected by freedom of press? How about spoken porn, like the "seven dirty words?" Where does the Constitution except porn that is spoken or published in print form from the First Amendment protections? And even if porn isn't technically speech, isn't is protected as speech, what about freedom of expression?

[mountainfolk]

LOL. She could do worse for titles. Truth isn't always stranger than fiction. As long as it sells---

[AndyJackson]

lets get into her published legal record

That is part of the problem. We have. There is no there there.

[DTogo]

While the Megyn Kendall you googled is certainly attractive, I was referring to this one:
http://www.cameroncole.com/cgi-bin/imageFolio.cgi?direct=News_Babes/Fox_News/Megyn_Kendall

[Peach]

If you were looking for cogent discussion of the Harriet Miers nomination however, forget it.

That's what most of Ann's columns are like. And her personal appearances on television are even worse. She is not taken seriously, imo. Sort of the Seinfeld of the right.

[AndyJackson]

Your words, not mine. Are you being forgetful, or just dishonest?

No I meant exactly what I said and nothing else, but you have tried to stretch the privacy of matters between consenting adults to cover murder and treason. Your mind might be that pliable, and not capable of these subtle differences. Most of us have no such problems.

[Peach]

Unadulterated baloney.

Find where you've asked me not to post to you.

And for someone who was accusing Iowa Granny of an attack, it's really hilarious that you don't think Ann has attacked Miers.

Your defense of Ann on every thread that details her articles is rather, well, sad. Like a boy through the looking glass.

[Plutarch]

I believe that, for instance, marital relations, being of common law origin, predate and are implicit in the Constitution, and I don't think that the state has the power to define what happens in the marital bed.

Then SCOTUS will find whatever else they please to be implicit, of common law origin, and a penumbra of the Constitution, and will rule over all of us completely untethered.

Andrew Jackson is likely spinning in his grave knowing you are holding such loosey-goosey views of the Constitution while using his name.

[goldstategop]

I agree with Ann. The Administration keeps coming up with even weaker defenses of Miers as time goes by. Instead of being served more, we've getting less! Wow, that will have people cheering from the rafters. No wonder conservatives are disappointed. We expected a lot better.

(Denny Crane: "Gun Control? For Communists. She's A Liberal. Can't Hunt".)

[Iowa Granny]

For whatever transgression you accuse her of, she's not fit to comment on ANY conservative issue?!

Everyone has a right to comment on anything. This is still a free country. I sincerely doubt a 'true' conservative would make such a poor choice.

My point is having made such a horrible bad choice, in public, she doesn't deserve to be taken seriously any more, because, obviously, she isn't taking herself seriously.

You can learn quite a bit by an individual by studying who their friends are. You can learn even more about them when you learn who they sleep with.

Annie is a CIRO Consevative in Reputation Only.

[goldstategop]

My view is a judge's personal views are irrelevant. They have no business belonging in a courtroom. That's exactly what has made the Supremes demi-gods! We should be doing the opposite - stripping them of the power to overturn laws on a whim and altering millions of people's lives in the process. The current theory is called judicial review. The President and his allies want to simply embrace the conservative version of it. That's where I beg to differ. Legislators make the laws; the role of a judge should be to carry them out faithfully. We don't need a conservative judicial activist on the bench any more than we need a liberal judicial activist there. That's what has turned this country into a judicial tyranny where if a person dons a black robe, without any accountability whatsoever, he or she gets to lord it over the rest of us. Now again, please tell me what led the President to name Miers? It certainly wasn't her judicial philosophy.

(Denny Crane: "Gun Control? For Communists. She's A Liberal. Can't Hunt".)