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.

[Iowa Granny]

Well, I'm sure someone is going to post a retraction soon, then everything will be resolved.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Democracy sometimes leads to silly laws like banning independent campaign expenditures close to an election.

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.

[GOPPachyderm]

"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.

[cmotormac44]

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?

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

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."

[Iowa Granny]

My guess is that they would feel that a) it was 6 months ago and the news cycle has moved on,

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

[NJ_gent]

"I have been gone a few weeks, who is this Harriet Miers anyways?"

Gone for weeks and you've caught up to the rest of us in a matter of minutes. Isn't that something?

[Valin]

"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

[CharlesWayneCT]

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.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Respectfully, you are wrong.

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.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Whose common sense? It is common sense for tyrannts to remove guns that could threaten their rule.

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.

[CharlesWayneCT]

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".

[CharlesWayneCT]

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.

[Sam Hill]

"Perhaps Sam should give Dan Rather a call."

Hilarious. If you only knew. (But you never will.)

[Kryptonite]

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.

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

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.

[George W. Bush]

I have been gone a few weeks, who is this Harriet Miers anyways?

Okay. That does it.

I'm calling in the moderators after a crack like that!

; )

[George W. Bush]

Miers' justification may have been wrong but I must say that the idea of any goverment body having the power to control what a married couple does in the bedroom is so repugnant to the idea of being secure in your property and person and the spirit of the 4th amendment that I see no problem with the Griswold decision.

But this is exactly the objection. If you decide something, even correctly, but cite the wrong reasons and don't rely upon the Constitution, you're engaging in judicial activism and replacing the voice of the people and the safeguards of the Constitution and guarantees of the Bill of Rights with your own personal political preferences.

The issue, for conservatives, is not whether Griswold was correctly decided. It's whether Griswold opened up a huge can of worms and introduced the poison of a right to 'privacy' (codeword for abortion in the modern era) into the courts where they could subsequently use that foothold to turn contraception into abortion-on-demand. And progress to abortion up to the moment of birth and abortion for minors without parents permission.

All flow from the flawed legal reasoning introduced in Griswold. But the flaw in Griswold is far more in the grounds cited in the majority opinion, not in the actual results of the case.

This is why you need jurists with a strong constitutional background and knowledge of history. Anything less gets you a thousand Griswolds and a million Roes. It's a very bad way to run courts. That's why the libs like it so much. And why they are so desperate to stop the best constructionist nominees.

[George W. Bush]

The Liberal Judiciary has done more damage to this country than Saddam and arguably even Al-Qaeda combined yet incredibly GWB invested political capital in war 5000 miles from here against someone who was no immediate threat. meanwhile liberal judges continue run roughshod over us; who has done more damage to the country: Saddam or the Gang of Nine? The answer is obvious, yet we spend billions of dollars and gallons of our youth's blood, and have barely more than a white flag to raise for the most important decision. Another wasted opportunity.

Outstanding.

I haven't seen anyone pursue this angle but it is apt. If you believe abortion is murder, then it is obvious.

But I didn't see it as clearly as you did or I would have thought of it and posted it first.

Great points, really.

[TAdams8591]

"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?"

Exactly!