Supreme Court Opinions Not Private Enough

http://www.anncoulter.org/ ^ | 11/6/03 | Anne Coulter

[duckln]

Ann's on the money. Bush should take on rouge federal justices. The House should start impeachments enmasse.

[Texas_Jarhead]

Agreed and Agreed

[Paleo Conservative]

Having literally gotten away with murder for a quarter century, the court is getting wilder and wilder, deferring to "international law" and issuing nutty pronouncements more appropriate to a NAMBLA newsletter.

According to my fiduciary responsibilities as a Freeper,
I am posting a picture of Ann Coulter with my post.

[Paleo Conservative]

Ms. Marshall has as much right to proclaim a right to gay marriage from the Massachusetts Supreme Court as I do to proclaim it from my column. The Massachusetts legislature ought to ignore the court's frivolous ruling ? and cut the justices' salaries if they try it again.

Impeach all of them as duckln wrote, "en masse."

[AZLiberty]

"Judicial dictatorship" says it all. One king or nine kings -- it's all the same. The time is ripe for a revolution. Ann Coulter will be the verbal equivalent of General George Washington.

[GeronL]

and now the 9th Circus basically says that funding terrorism is not treason.

[thegreatbeast]

"Marshall, immigrant and wife of New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis, has recently proclaimed a right to gay marriage for all of Massachusetts. She has further demanded that the legislature rewrite the law in accordance with her wishes. One imagines Marshall leaping off the boat at Ellis Island and announcing: "I know just what this country needs! Anthony! Stop defending Pol Pot for five minutes and get me on a court!" I'm from MA and didn't know this! Good work, Ann.

[Torie]

It pains me, but this screed by this woman, is highly effective, and indeed close to a brilliant piece in the way it is constructed. Kudos for the talent displayed.

[IncPen]

ping

[lainde]

Another brilliant Coulter piece...Ping!!

[jimkress]

Throughout history it has been acknowledged that the taking of a life in the defense of an innocent person is not a crime.

Who can be more innocent than an unborn child?

Abortion: the most selfish 'choice' any human can make.

[Arthur McGowan]

In statements in January and in April of 1973, the Catholic bishops of the U.S. announced that Roe was null, and that it did not alter any of the obligations of any public official. In other words, the bishops took the official position that Roe and Doe were to be disobeyed, and that anyone (such as the fifty governors and the fifty state legislatures) who obeyed the Supreme Court's commands would be committing criminal acts. The bishops then promptly forgot about their statements and resumed their lifelong snuggling up to Democrats.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Abortion: the most selfish 'choice' any human can make.

While it may be selfish, it is more often misguided. Even "Roe" knows that now.

And you know who has been misguiding the could've-been-mothers most? The Malthusians in their current incarnation as deep ecologists.

No matter how many times Malthus has been proven wrong, his ideas are still drummed into the skull of ever school-child, to get us all to repeat the demonic canard "Everybody knows the planet has too many people." Abortion is discreetly touted as a voluntary act of cutting off that growth. Mostly on the Left, but some allegedly of the Right as well. And the relentless "environmental" drumbeat in the media and the schools and by the Democrats and acceded to by our RINOs.

No, to call it simply a selfish act -- even where it is such -- is to miss the top-down selfishness of those who have schemed to convince women and many men too (too many of whom wished to avoid the consequences of their dalliances) -- to cutoff their own natural road to immortality.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Americans who opposed abortion spent the next 20 years working within the system, electing two presidents, patiently waiting for Supreme Court justices to retire, fighting bruising nomination battles to get three Reagan nominees and two Bush nominees on the court...

But the Supreme Court upheld the "constitutional right" to abortion announced in Roe. The decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was written by Reagan's biggest mistake, Sandra Day O'Connor, his third-choice candidate [after Bork -- remember him? -- and anther Ginsberg (IIRC) piloried not like Bader(-meinhof)-Ginsberg for her actually being a leader of the RICO eligible ACLU (oops -- imagine that -- the GOP senators somehow let that fact slide by) but for allegedly smoking dope] Anthony Kennedy, and "stealth nominee" David Hackett Souter....

Meanwhile, conservatives responded the way conservatives always do. They went back to the drawing board and came up with a plan.... Elect a Republican president, wait for openings on the court and keep your fingers crossed.... We can't even get the stunningly brilliant Harvard law graduate and Honduran immigrant Miguel Estrada a spot on a court of appeals....

...the notion of the Constitution as a "living document," [whose ever-growing penumbra's current state is mystically divined by 5 of 9 black robes for their idea of "compelling state interest" rather than the overly restrictive (for justices of their exaltation, I mean really? -- sniff) means of amending the constitution to let it grow as it was intended. (Sorry Anne -- I just know you could have said something like this.)]

[Anne's fans respond:] "Well, Gee Anne. This is great to have written so clearly. But, as you point out, this happens even with Republican Presidents and Congress controlled by the GOP. So what can we really do?"

Well, let me answer for her:

What part of Republican In Name Only can't you help your fellow voters notice when the next $h|t-load of Democrats in sheeps' clothing run in ANY Republican Primary?

All that the RINOs we've elected have served to do is to let the scheming enslavers heat up the frog-stewing water more slowly! (Sorry -- already boiled over 30 million American "tadpoles.")

Two years ago I provided the outline of a formula -- and invited other to add their ideas -- for making the political success of RINOs' more difficult. Are more of you angry enough yet to try it? One person can't do it alone. But in force? The nation may yet be saved from the Leftist-Statist pit into which the mad-for-power-and-fearful-to-lose-it cowards would plunge us. Conservative stalwarts are the natural leaders to organize a revolt that jettisons the Rats nibbling at our constitution.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

You have made some very good points here.

[xzins]

This is probably the woman we need to elect president some day.

She's a combo of Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Maggie Thatcher....Steel Nerve & Logic.

There comes a time to ignore the Supreme Court.

I, too, can read. The document doesn't say what they say it says. It will get to a point that that fact is far too obvious.

[meia]

No matter how you feel about these issues, Ann has one thing completely wrong. Just because it is not listed as a right in the constitution does not mean it is illegal. The Constitution and our Bill of Rights were not meant to be an all inclusive list of what we are permitted to do.

[xzins]

I fear you have missed the whole point.

The point is that the constitution says not a word about these things she has mentioned no matter what convoluted logic the judges use to arrive at their desired endpoint.

It doesn't say it.

Therefore, the matter at hand is not theirs to decide.

It is a matter to be left alone or to be debated by the people. It is a matter for the people via their legislatures to make laws if those become necessary.

[expatpat]

How many Army divisions does the Supreme Court have?

[DLfromthedesert]

Thanks for the Coulter pro-life ping. The courts have usurped power and must be stopped in their tracks.

Do we have any elected official who has the leadership qualities to boldly proclaim this reality?

Our president might be that leader, but currently is embroiled in another major battle. But if we lose our country to these Marxists, is it worth winning that other battle???