Mark Levin Calls Out Ann Coulter For Unfairly Trashing Newt Gingrich

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-calls-out-ann-coulter-for-unfairly-trashing-newt-gingrich/ ^ | Dec 16, 2011 | Mark Levin

[sheikdetailfeather]

Mark Levin accuses Ann Coulter (and BillO) of using what is a perfect opportunity to discuss Newt’s comments last night on changing the judiciary to instead trash him in favor of her candidate, calling him bombastic and minimizing him by saying that he never achieves anything anyway:

[sheikdetailfeather]

"She won’t even give the man credit for what he has achieved! Taking back the House from 44 years of Democrat monopoly was never thought possible and in doing so he had to defeat the Republican establishment! You can’t even give him that?

No they can’t, because they have a hate-on. They have a hate-on. …

Do you know why I resent this? Because now we have a bunch of bullies running around. And Giuliani was 100% right. They’re trying to turn this guy into a crazy man.

And I resent it and I resist it! He’s not even my guy and I resent it and I resist it!"

[2ndDivisionVet]

Ted Baxter was his usual idiotic self.

[sheikdetailfeather]

I’m so glad Mark is nailing these snakes who think the American people are stupid.

[onyx]

TGO is right and Ann’s remarks were apppalling.

In the tank for Romney. Blatantly.

GO GINGRICH!

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

If someone has a better idea than Newt for reigning in the judiciary, I’d like to hear it.

[bray]

Coulter has really gone over to the dark side.

Pray for America

[2ndDivisionVet]

Ann Coulter has joined the Peggy Noonan, Chris Buckley, Kathleen Parker elitist Northeastern Kaffeeklatsch.

[Roklok]

Ann Coulter has joined the Peggy Noonan, Chris Buckley, Kathleen Parker elitist Northeastern Kaffeeklatsch.

Ya, and she also looks like crap on Hi Definition TV.

[donmeaker]

The usual approach to reign in the judiciary is to pass a law defining the matters the appeals court used incorrectly. That removes the precedent. The last thing is an amendment.
In between one can impeach judges. Congress can also establish limits on subjects to be reviewed by the courts.

Those are the constitutional methods.

[Impala64ssa]

I’m still not certain about going for Newt at this time, and I like Ann Coulter, I appreciate her forthrightness and willingness to call it the way she sees it, but her remarks were uncalled for.

[2ndDivisionVet]

She’s not exactly a spring chicken. She just turned 50 on the 8th.

[onyx]

Dearest you, Bray. Yes, she has lost her mind. Her remarks tonight were appalling, or dare I say, “bombastic”?

[onyx]

RLY? 50?
I thought her age was a secret.

[2ndDivisionVet]

December 8, 1961 according to Wiki, IMDB, and Biography.

[onyx]

Interesting. I guess she intends to remain single.

[bray]

I like bombastic statements. The more bombastic the bigger the explosion, which is why Newtie is growing on us. He bombastisized the pipeline answer.

Pray for America

[Roklok]

“Interesting. I guess she intends to remain single.”

Most men could not tolerate the mouth.

[onyx]

LOL. And her precious judiciary. Maybe you will Bray about these pundits......

[onyx]

Most men could not tolerate the mouth.

ROFL. Yes, mine has said that more than a couple of times.

[nathanbedford]

Let's look at the attacks on Newt in the framework that led me to support him in the first place: electability; conservative bona fides; vision.

We are in a perpetually recycling loop: the attacks on Newt assert that he is unelectable, generally because he is too conservative, often disguised as being "bombastic" or carrying "baggage." In the next breath we are told that Gingrich is not conservative, usually disguised as being is "opportunistic" or "egotistical." In effect, we are told that Gingrich is unelectable because he is too conservative and even if he is elected he will betray us because he is not a true conservative.

When Gingrich proposes truly conservative remedies such as his uproariously and positively received proposals during the debate to rein in the judiciary, pundits like Ann Coulter accuse him of being over the top. But in the next breath she accuses him of not being conservative enough.

Let's examine Gingrich's proposal on the judiciary. A run-of-the-mill Republican trying to convince us that he is a conservative will tell us that he will appoint judges who will be true to the Constitution and will not be "activist." We have heard this tune so many times before. Even our hero Ronald Reagan, appointed justices who did not turn out well. We know what happened with Justice Souter. We narrowly escaped a Harriet Meir from George W Bush and it was only through a grassroots uprising that George W. Bush abandoned crony judicial appointments. Eisenhower once said his biggest mistake was appointing Warren to the Supreme Court. How long do we need to learn that what we are doing is not working?

Gingrich proposes a whole new approach, a direct assault on the presumptions of the judiciary which have been growing more and more arrogant since Marbury v. Madison. It is a assault grounded in history which promises to change the trajectory of our constitutional history. Gingrich says that the idea that we can safely abandon our Constitution to judges is leading us far astray. Recent history proves that trying to pack the court with our own brand of judges has been ineffective. Roe versus Wade and the inability to simply find judges who will overturn it after 40 years and 40 million dead should tell us something.

Ann Coulter, like Megan Kelly, is an attorney who is trying to protect the Guild. It is an establishment presumption. Funny how Gingrich is often accused of being of the "establishment."

Gingrich offers vision. If you think the country can go on as it has been going, take your only alternative, Mitt Romney, but if you think that the country is on the brink of destruction, you need more than a mechanic.