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.

[Urbane_Guerilla]

Ann Coulter carried on and ranted against the nomination of John Roberts as well. What is her problem?

Her "problem" is not being a sucker.

Roberts might well turn out to be a disaster, and my guess is that he will be, but it is a guess, and that is exactly the way President wanted it. Only a total jerk and jackass with a hidden agenda would have presented such an ambiguous cipher under the circumstances ... but at least we knew that Roberts understood what the heck confronted him. Cold comfort, very cold.

Now, just guessing again, as the President wanted it ... like any sophomoric jerk or jackass, who deems it clever to make people guess about such a serious issue ... it seems the President has nominated a second cipher, but this time an opportunist, a self-promoter, a mediocrity, and a sychophant.

And like the good poker player he is (and knowing that good conservative folks admired him for it), he has disgraced and bamboozled (yet once more) those same folks, who never understood he was not a conservative, but just a Bush Republican, a man who understood that there were certain minimal things he needed to do to swindle the mass of Republicans.

A man who does not operate from principle, but strictly from self interest, a Bill Clinton with his pants on.

A man who operates with such a lack of clarity, even a politician, is an untrustworthy man, a man repugnant to the principles of conservatism.

[tame]

Ann, you're right on as usual, but you need to be smacked if you're dating a lefty.

[veronica]

It's very unfortunate that some Conservatives here would rather attack other Conservatives, and become fodder for posters at leftwingnut sites, (yes Granny, your posts on this thread are being featured at a site which rips FReepers 24-7, posted in fact, by a person who posts here and there, I am told...) It's really silly to go after Ann Coulter for having a relationship that is nothing but a rumor in a gossip column. I can read the venom at Daily Kos if I want to read that crap. And even if it were true, SO WHAT???? Sheesh!

[Peach]

Hon, you'll have to show me where I ever complimented Ann Coulter. If I did so, it would have been 5 years ago while she was trying to be a credible journalist instead of a stand up comic.

But nice of you to show up again.

I'm still waiting for that post you were going to find where you asked me previous to this evening not to post to you. (Not that it would stop me. LOL)

[AZ_Cowboy]

LOL, but you forgot the other favorites...

On a Coulter thread, you dare not pass over the folks who think that Coulter is off her rocker because she "sleeps alone at night". Excellent criteria, is it not? I mean, after all, the strength of an argument is obviously related to your ability to get a good lay on a nightly basis, right? Do I need a sarc tag for this one or not?

You also neglected the folks who swear on every thread that they're done with Coulter, and yet always manage to show up the following week.

This one already has 200 posts on it, though, so I'm sure it's already gone to a new low.

[Black Tooth]

My comments were not a personal attack. It was a statement. Real conservatives do not take seriously the thoughts of middleaged women who sleep with young men barely past their teen years.

Yeah, yuk yuk. Me too, I could care less about everything else, but dad gum it, I wanna know who she's sleepin wit! She aint no cunservatiiive! Ah ageee wit you.

I reckon she'll geet her child upcommance.

She can raise my taxes, raid my country and give ma money away, but if she wants to get all wicked, she'll burn! On fire! Hurt!

((A'mm jus pullen yur leg Granny!)) Looken for a bit o humor, me.

[Peach]

It's very unfortunate that some Conservatives here would rather attack other Conservatives, and become fodder

But it's okay for Ann to attack the president, Roberts and Miers? Must be some new rules for conservatives I wasn't aware of. Just be sure to post the entire set and we'll be sure to try and follow them. Provided Ann does, of course.

[veronica]

Your defense of Ann on every thread that details her articles is rather, well, sad.

I would say that attacks here on Ann are rather sad. The lefties have gotta be loving these times. DeLay in a mug shot, and the GOP turning on itself. Tragic.

There will be some very serious complaining around here next year, some REAL things to whine about, if this self-inflicted nonsense doesn't end.

[Sam Hill]

USA TODAY SPIKES ANN COULTER COLUMN AT CONVENTION
Drudge Report ^ | 7/26/04

Posted on 07/26/2004 11:55:16 AM EDT by kattracks

1 posted on 07/26/2004 11:55:18 AM EDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: kattracks

Figures

2 posted on 07/26/2004 11:56:35 AM EDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: 1Old Pro

And the mainstream media reigns again. The leftist media is enemy #2, right behind the jihadists.

3 posted on 07/26/2004 11:57:17 AM EDT by Peach (The Clinton's pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

http://tinyurl.com/b6q8e

(Not that I was talking about Peach in particular. I really never noticed his/her posts until he/she started stalking me.)

[MarkL]

Nothing would besides it would be idiotic for a Democratically elected Government to do so. If you want marital relations to be a Constitutional right you can pass a Constitutional Amendment that so specifies. You could include other bodily functions as well. But such a right was not spelled out in the Constitution and the right of privacy has to be derived from penumbras. If you give the Judges the power to divine penumbras you make the Judiciary a Perfect Tyranny.

You might want to take another look at the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights... Just because a "Constitutionally protected right" isn't listed, does NOT mean it doesn't exist.

By your definition, then everything NOT listed in the Constitution might be made illegal, except when specifically exempted by law...

Mark

[Cautor]

"Many of the same people who not so long ago slavered ridiculously over Ann Coulter (or Robert Bork, or fill in the blank) now can't make up enough nasty things to say about her (them). "

And by God they're likely to slaver over them again.

[veronica]

I don't agree with Coulter on lots of things these days. But I don't feel the need to attack her weight, her dates, her shoes, or anything else like that. I save that stuff for Hillary...:)

[veronica]

LOL...

[xzins]

Ann needs to change her strategy. It isn't working.

Miers is still going before the judicial committee.

[Revolting cat!]

Ouch, that's gonna hurt (#221,) but thanks for telling it like it is, to a rather unreceptive audience.

Incidentally, did you know, that Richard Rodriguez' mother, a Mexican immigrant who worked her way up to being a California governor's secretary (as they were still called then) was demoted under Guv'nor Reagan for misspelling your last name (which wasn't in common use in this form at the time)?

[Iowa Granny]

It's very unfortunate that some Conservatives here would rather attack other Conservatives

If only Ann had followed that mantra.

Veronica dear, choose your words carefully, you may have to eat them.

[Peach]

You really don't get it, do you?

You're upset that some nameless people on the internet are attacking Ann Coulter.

But it's okay she has been attacking the president, Miers and Roberts. Interesting set of priorities you have.

One would think that Ann Coulter's articles and television appearances would garner more attention than a few of us commenting on this thread. But perhaps she has even fewer readers and viewers than I had imagined.

[veronica]

I think some women are jealous of Ann.

Jealously is not very pretty....

Heh...

[Peach]

Stalking you? Oh, hon. You need even more help than I had imagined.

Please post my last comment to you prior to today. Oh, that's right. You can't even post where you asked me previously never to post to you again. You're just making it up as you go along.

And, btw, you did notice that the USA Today comments don't show me posting to 'lil ole important you, don't you?

[Peach]

Too bad Ann doesn't have your standards and can't seem to stop attacking people like she's been attacking Miers. Surely she is smart enough to make her disagreement with this nomination without resorting to personal attacks.