Posted on 10/19/2005 2:09:36 PM PDT by bigsky
Well, I'm sure someone is going to post a retraction soon, then everything will be resolved.
Well the court wasn't any better on that issue than the legislature, so what's your point? Besides, that is an issue that the Constitution is not silent on. Like...Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Only, the keystone court of self appointed kings couldn't even common sense their way into seeing that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ADBRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
"What Coulter wants is a judicial oligarchy."
I think Ann wants a strict constructionist would choose not to rule on a states-rights issue about contraceptives, rather than use "common sense" to overrule an unenforced law that helped to establish framework for Roe v Wade.
There was piece on FR yesterday? telling about Coulters new boy toy she is dating---maybe she has to keep him happy, since he is a 'rat', by bashing someone that the President has faith in---also, has to keep up her image to get on the shows and in the papers so her followers keep buying her stuff---tough tightrope for an old broad to balance on--love conquers all?
Thanks for your reply. :-)
I don't know whether the NYDN would issue a retraction for an untrue gossip blurb written 6 months ago, unless they were really badgered into it. My guess is that they would feel that a) it was 6 months ago and the news cycle has moved on, and b) it was a *gossip* column. There often seems to be an implied understanding between tabloid reporters and their readers that gossip is somewhat unreliable and generally not taken seriously. An article of substance rarely begins with the phrase "OMG!!!". Having lived in NYC for a number of years and having read it everyday by virtue of its omnipresence, I don't take anything written in the Daily News as gospel.
As for the badgering into a retraction, I don't think much protest against this old story would come from its subject, who is accustomed to being called a transvestite NAZI dominatrix prostitute and a racistsexisthomophobichatemongeringwarlovingbigot motivated entirely by her enjoyment of forcing "brown" babies off the face of the earth. Coulter has probably heard it all, so I don't know how much this would upset her, especially given her tendency to quote Whittaker Chambers' "innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks; guilt does."
You know, if it were SIX MONTHS ago, I'd have to agree with you, but this was posted on the 17th, 2 days ago.
It's hardly the kind of information the FReepers would let lay around for 6 months before posting and discussing it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1504277/posts
"ANN REALLY NEEDS TO EAT SOMETHING"
Well she does!
"ANN IS NOW A LOONEY LIKE PAT BUCHANAN"
Disagree Pat is waaaay loonier than she is, but then he's had many more years of experience. And I doubt is she ever ran for president she wouldn't pick a commie as her running mate
Griswald can be defended by citing clear constitutional tenets. One concurring opinion does that. The majority opinion went far beyond what was required to rule the Ct. law unconstitutional, precisely to set up Roe.
I realise that there is significant debate on this point. But it is a constitutional debate, rather than a policy debate.
We're told she has terrific "common sense." Common sense is the last thing you want in a judge!
Ann said that common sense was the LAST THING we wanted in a judge. And she didn't mean it was the last of a list of things she wanted, she meant it was something you definitely did NOT want.
I did use logic to determine that if you did NOT want a judge with common sense, then you must WANT a judge with no common sense.
I'll readily admit that I don't believe Ann MEANS this, but she certainly did SAY it, and she meant to say it -- this isn't her being sarcastic.
My point is that common sense is merely a tool. It is all in how it is used. Ann presumes that "commn sense" can only be applied to outcomes (or at least that is what she argues). My point is that "common sense" can be applied to the interpretation of the constitution itself, which I believe yields a strict constructionist outcome.
That is why in my post I talked about using common sense in READING the words of the constitution, and accepting that it means what it says.
Another way to say that is to say that a reasonable intelligent person, without specialized training, reading the constitution, will understand what the government isn't allowed to do. It is a document written for the common person, to be interpreted by common-sense means, not by tortured intellectualist logic.
As I explained, common sense applied to the constitution is to see the word "public use" and realise it means "public use".
Intellectual parsing that comes from years of training in the nuances of the constitution lead you to assume there must be something more, something the average "common-sense" person can't possibly know; so you find that any use which give government a benefit should be called "public use". That is not common sense. Nobody reading the 5th amendment would EVER think that is what it means, unless they had a law degree and years of talking constitutional minutae in ivory towers cut off from common sense.
Does anybody really believe that Kelo was the "common-sense" ruling? We all said it made "NO SENSE".
My point was to contrast with Ann's line about "silly laws". She was saying that it was a "common-sense" approach that made judges become activists, throwing out "silly laws".
I was pointing out that in fact the justices DO need to throw out silly laws that violate our constitutional rights, and that often a "common-sense" reading of the law and the constitution yeilds the CORRECT answer.
Using "common-sense": Would you read the 1st amendment and by common-sense determine that you COULD stop people from talking about candidates in the months before the election? No, that make NO SENSE. Common Sense is the antithesis of NO SENSE.
That was my point. I want somebody making a common-sense reading of the constitution and applying it as it was written, in a common-sense way. Not trying to find prenumbras and eminations. Those most certainly are not "common-sense" things.
"Perhaps Sam should give Dan Rather a call."
Hilarious. If you only knew. (But you never will.)
I'd like to get on that list too.
My keyword: SHARKJUMPER
She really, really, really, really, really blew it when she came out against the most brilliant witness to ever testify before the judiciary committee, John Roberts, current Chief Justice.
I was referencing the age of the story (published Sun., May 1), not the date of its last posting on FR.
There was a brief mention of it at the time (in the spring), and just a few posts-- one said something to the effect of "I hope it's not true," then a number of others outlined the logistical infeasibility of the alleged situation. It didn't get much attention, for some reason. It was discussed a bit more on other conservative forums, but was also quickly disproved.
Exactly!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.