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.

[bigsky]

[DTogo]

Quick! WE need a

"WAAAAAAA! Moveon.org Conservatives can't dictate to the President who THEY want to BE on the Supreme Court!"

post to start the thread! Quick!

[Stellar Dendrite]

LOL!

[CharlesWayneCT]

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

That is why we need a court, to impose constitutional control over an out-of-control government legislating things they have no business legislating. Like campaign contributiones. Like a person's personal contraceptive choice.

I should go easy on Ann, because in her desire to trash Miers she actually BELIEVED (trusted) Arlen Specter to give an accurate account of a conversation. Normally Ann would know better.

Constitutional law CAN use common sense. Common sense says that when the constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that it means that people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Complex nuances of 30-year theoretical introspection over the constitution leads to the nuance which allows a judge to say that flag-burning is speech, but money isn't speech. Or that "for public use" can actually mean "for government benefit".

We need a common-sense reading of the constitution.

I have no idea if Miers will do that, which is the real problem. But to argue that the problem is that we want a justice that has no common sense is simply silly. I bet Souter had no common sense at all. He doesn't seem like a guy that has any sense, common or otherwise.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[Stellar Dendrite]

Don't forget the token "ANN REALLY NEEDS TO EAT SOMETHING" or "ANN IS NOW A LOONEY LIKE PAT BUCHANAN" posts

[CharlesWayneCT]

BTW, have we all missed the part that the 1st few weeks of a nominee for the court is when we paint a picture of them as a human being, not some robot? I don't know why, but somehow it has become important to show that a justice is a living, breathing person with thoughts and feelings.

I used to think it was to try to stop democrats from saying hateful things about them that you would never say to a fellow human being, but since the dems now trash nominees while their families are sitting there, that can't be it.

The liberals like to see humanity because they think that their beliefs are human-loving while republicans are human-hating. They are wrong, republicans are much more human than democrats.

I thought the comment about her bowling was hilarious. Anybody who couldn't see the frustration of this white house played out in that statement has lost their sense of humor.

[trubluolyguy]

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 . . .

---

Thank you Ms. Coulter for once again putting into words what I could not.

[cynicom]

Stop the agony, urge the "republicans" to merge with their democrat brethren. Get it over with.

Conservatives trying to work within the republican party is and has been a waste of time and votes.

[ConservativeDude]

"Miers told Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) she would have voted with the majority in Griswold"

Presumably she said this because, after all, how can a reasonable person be against not outlawing birth control, right?

Which is a legitimate position - for a legislator. They can campaign on that. That is what elections are all about.

The question for judges is altogether different. It is this. Does the Constitution allow the states to regulate health, safety and morals? Is there anything in the text of the Constitution which says otherwise (no)? Have the states historically had this type of power (yes - that is until this case)?

The only way to get around this, is for the judge to substititue his views for the legislature's views.

Which is precisely what the Corut did in Griswold...not to mention Roe, Lawrence, and so on.

If Miers supports Griswold, then she accepts the role of judge as super-legislator.

That, or else she didn't know what Griswold is about.

I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not sure which interpretation of her comment is more accurate: is she an idiot? Or a judicial activist? I don't know. But it's one or the other.

[Texas Federalist]

LOL!!!

[Rodney King]

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."

Well said.

[fr_freak]

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

That is why we need a court, to impose constitutional control over an out-of-control government legislating things they have no business legislating. Like campaign contributiones. Like a person's personal contraceptive choice.

You're actually proving Ann's point: by saying that you want a court to control the legislature to make sure they don't make bad legislation, you are necessarily asking the court to decide what is and is not bad policy. That kind of thing is entirely subjective, and is exactly why we have the problem with the court that we have now. We do not want justices striking down laws because their version of "common sense" tells them that the law is stupid.

The only thing the court should be deciding is whether a law passes Constitutional muster or not, and even then they should only be making that determination if the case is brought before them by litigating parties. In the case of Connecticut outlawing birth control for married couples, the Court would have been doing its job to strike that law down if it were federal, but had no business striking down a state law based on a presumed "right of privacy" found in the penumbras of the federal Constitution. If the Court is going to step on a state's sovereign authority to set its own standards, it should be doing so ONLY because the state law violates a specific Constitutional limitation, otherwise the Court has no business meddling. If the Court is allowed to invent such limitation based on "penumbras" rather than the explicit text, then, in theory, they could justify overturning any law in the country at any level of government that they chose.

If we don't limit the Court to this level of review, then we'll find ourselves, if we haven't already, in the situation where the Court dictates the "rights" we have down to our individual behavior, and in our own homes, a place where the federal government should NEVER belong.

[OldFriend]

I get it now. Ann is auditioning for Chrissy Matthews co-host.

[Howlin]

LOL!

[MNJohnnie]

Gee I am sorry you all have such a hard time grasping the concept of a Constitutional Republic that has worked fine for 230 or so years. What Ann WANTS is a monarchy where SHE gets to be queen. Sorry, NOT interested even though she would make a FABULOUS queen.

[Stellar Dendrite]

After a couple of weeks of research and intense debate, have any minds been changed? Do you approve of the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?

Composite Opinion
pct votes

No 39.1% 938
Yes 36.3% 869
Need more info 19.8% 474
Pass 2.5% 61
I'm voting Hillary! 2.3% 55
Total 100.0% 2,397



Member Opinion

No 37.9% 486
Yes 36.0% 462
Need more info 22.3% 286
Pass 3.0% 38
I'm voting Hillary! 0.9% 11
Total 100.1% 1,283





Non-Member Opinion
No 40.6% 452
Yes 36.5% 407
Need more info 16.9% 188
I'm voting Hillary! 3.9% 44
Pass 2.1% 23
Total 100.0% 1,114

[Zeppo]

Fighting hyperbole with hyperbole, huh?

[VRWC For Truth]

Coulter is back on her game though the hyperbole is toned down.

[jdhljc169]

But without a conservative theory of constitutional interpretation, Miers will lay the groundwork for a million more Roes.

Exactly right, Ann. That's why so many of us are against this nomination.

[Always Right]

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

[Texas Federalist]

So you mean "WAAAAAAH!! I'm a moveon.org conservative! WAAAAH!!" isn't showing to be a winning argument?

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Wow. No personal attacks on the president this time (at least none I've seen skipping around), and she actually makes some good points. A step up for Ann!

[LibLieSlayer]

:-)

LLS

[shhrubbery!]

If Miers supports Griswold, then she accepts the role of judge as super-legislator. That, or else she didn't know what Griswold is about. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not sure which interpretation of her comment is more accurate: is she an idiot? Or a judicial activist? I don't know. But it's one or the other.

Um, no. There's yet another possibility beyond Miers's being either an "idiot" or a "judicial activist."

And that possibility is that Specter got it WRONG.

Are you aware that Specter had to retract his claim that Miers told him in their private meeting that she endorsed Griswold ???

Specter told reporters that beyond stating that constitution includes a right to privacy, Miers had voiced support for two privacy-related rulings handed down a generation ago in which the court affirmed a right for couples to use contraceptives.

But former Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., who is shepherding Miers' nomination, said in a telephone interview that the Pennsylvania Republican was mistaken. "When asked about the Griswold case, Harriet Miers said what she has consistently said all along, and that is ... she is not commenting on specific cases," he said in reference to a 1965 ruling involving the use of contraceptives by married couples.

An aide to Specter, William Reynolds, subsequently issued a statement saying the senator "accepts Ms. Miers statement that he misunderstood what she said."

(Reminds me of Dickie Durbin's little caper with his claim about what happened in his private meeting with John Roberts. Seems to be SOP for liberal senators -- like Specter.)

So I'd like to present you with two other possibilities:

1. Either Ann Coulter is unaware of Specter's retraction;
2. Or, she is deliberately ignoring it and is misinforming the public because of animus against Miers.

Not exactly responsible of Ann, is it?

[Cincinna]

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

[DTogo]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Plutarch]

I get it now. Ann is auditioning for Chrissy Matthews co-host.

Your snide comment is neither funny nor relevent.

Ann is making telling arguments while other conservative writers cower. We need a SCOTUS nominee who will serve to restore the Constitution. The litmus test is agreeing with the dissent of Griswold .

What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy "created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.

At the oral argument in this case we were told that the Connecticut law does not "conform to current community standards." But it is not the function of this Court to decide cases on the basis of community standards. We are here to decide cases "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States." It is the essence of judicial [381 U.S. 479, 531] duty to subordinate our own personal views, our own ideas of what legislation is wise and what is not. If, as I should surely hope, the law before us does not reflect the standards of the people of Connecticut, the people of Connecticut can freely exercise their true Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights to persuade their elected representatives to repeal it. That is the constitutional way to take this law off the books.

If Miers doesn't agree with this dissent, then commit her nomination to the flames, and find an effective originalist nominee.

[Stellar Dendrite]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101800715_pf.html


Shortly after the 100-minute session, Specter told reporters that Miers had embraced two Supreme Court rulings -- including the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut -- that are considered important predecessors to the 1973 Roe ruling. Miers phoned Specter on Monday night to say she had not endorsed Griswold, and the senator's office later that night issued an e-mail saying Specter "accepts Ms. Miers's statement that he misunderstood what she said."

Yesterday, however, Specter told reporters that his recollection of the conversation remains "the one I gave you" Monday. Specter, a moderate who supports abortion rights, portrayed the confirmation process as among the most chaotic and contradictory of his 25 years in the Senate. "I can't think of one where a disagreement arose in quite this way," he said. Specter said he will revisit his Monday conversation with Miers but only at the hearing, when cameras and tape recorders will be rolling. "I may meet with her again on other subjects," he said. "But not on this conversation. We've had it. I've had it."

[LexBaird]

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

She's that lawyer-shaped hole next to the President, into which he is asking us to pour our trust.

[Stellar Dendrite]

see #30

[ConservativeDude]

"So I'd like to present you with two other possibilities:

1. Either Ann Coulter is unaware of Specter's retraction;
2. Or, she is deliberately ignoring it and is misinforming the public because of animus against Miers.

Not exactly responsible of Ann, is it?"


I'll accept that clarification, but of course we would just (still) be accepting hearsay and in addition to your two possibilities, there could be a third, and that is that everyone is sort of running for cover here and the truth may be getting lost.

I'm curious about the "Warren" episode, also, though. What's the inside skinny on that? Has Specter cleared that up?

Another thing though is disturbing here. I thought this was the stealth nominee that was supposed to sail by people like Specter and Leahy? At the minimum, it seems that not everything is going according to a master plan.

[ConservativeDude]

Check out post #30. It seems like though Specter initially retracted, he is now retracting his retraction.....


I think maybe my suggestion that everyone is running for cover and the truth may be hard to figure out is the most accurate.

But we shall see. At any rate, this isn't exactly going as planned.

[Cboldt]

Specter, a moderate who supports abortion rights, portrayed the confirmation process as among the most chaotic and contradictory of his 25 years in the Senate. "I can't think of one where a disagreement arose in quite this way," he said. Specter said he will revisit his Monday conversation with Miers but only at the hearing, when cameras and tape recorders will be rolling. "I may meet with her again on other subjects," he said. "But not on this conversation. We've had it. I've had it."

Ahh. The strategery is working. First get the rank and file into a state of chaos and contadiction; then the Senate. Pretty soon the plan to ... uh ....

What was the plan again?

[DevSix]

Gee I am sorry you all have such a hard time grasping the concept of a Constitutional Republic that has worked fine for 230 or so years. What Ann WANTS is a monarchy where SHE gets to be queen. Sorry, NOT interested even though she would make a FABULOUS queen.

Exactly right - Funny to watch some on the right simply stay on the wrong side of history on this one -

But is is not funny at all to watch some on the right whore themselves out to the MSM (who assure them TV TIME) if they'll attack GWB and the GOP - They are pathetic -

The MSM is loving this and these cheap whores like Bork, Buchanan and others keep feeding them what they want.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

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!

The WH has clustered this nomination. As an evangelical, I don't care about her church affiliation or how she stood on a political issue. The only relevant inquiry is whether a justice has an acceptable judicial philosophy. The best way of determining that philosophy is to see how that potential justice decided cases. With Harriet, we do not have any way of determining that philosophy, apart from the POTUS demanding that we trust him.

Apparently, Bush picked Harriet to avoid a fight with the Dems. Due to their mismanagment, the WH has got a fight with a far less qualified and accomplished candidate. What a complete waste!

Now, one of the bots will flame me for daring to question the wisdom of the President. Go ahead. I just don't care.

[dighton]

I have been gone a few weeks . . .

You lucky devil.

[republicofdavis]

"Gee I am sorry you all have such a hard time grasping the concept of a Constitutional Republic that has worked fine for 230 or so years."

You're getting even more illogical. The point is that our Constitutional Republic has NOT been working because of the takeover by the courts. This is what we're fighting. Why do you make the illogical leap to conclude that Ann or any of us want a monarchy? It makes no sense.

[Mulch]

She's GWB's friend.

[republicofdavis]

"(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."

This wasn't necessary though and undermines what was an otherwise excellent analysis. Sometimes her quips and asides are effective. Here they're not.

[Borges]

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.

Abortion is not a privacy issue because there is an innocent life involved not to mention the simpler fact that it is a medical procedure and as such should be subject to state censure. But wouldn't taking the other side in Griswold ential also assuming that a state has the power to outlaw premarital sex as well?

[counterpunch]

Here come the orcs, right on time.

[shhrubbery!]

It seems like though Specter initially retracted, he is now retracting his retraction.....

Well, that just adds to Arlen's credibility, now, doesn't it? /s

And the fact remains, Ann didn't note either Specter's retraction OR his waffling on his retraction.

I still call that irresponsible on Ann's part.

I guess it could boil down to this: Whom are you more likely to believe -- Dan Coats, or the "ardently pro-choice" Arlen Specter?

[Jimmy Valentine]

Our "Goddess" is really po'd. I bow to her superior wisdom in this matter.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Stellar, it looks like folks are turning against Harriet. I need to cast my vote.

[Mulch]

"...the idea of any government 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..."

Define "does"?

[johnny7]

It is a waste... a bum play called at scrimmage.

We wanted Rogers-Brown... we'd settle for Owen... but we got Miers. That's equivalent to a movie director who wanted DeNiro... would settle for Pesci... but got Steve Guttenberg.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

you said: these cheap whores like Bork

does that qualify as character assassination? does that tactic used more by Karl Rove or James Carville

[mountainfolk]

The most impressive thing I have heard about acid mouth Coulter is her snagging a RAT boy toy some 10 years her junior. See how easy it is to be dismissive and condescending of the accomplishments of others? Also, tho I love bowling I have never done much of it. It is a healthy and fun and also addictive sport enjoyed by non-cerebral as well as real smart six pack people I know. To be a good bowler, one must focus on the strike. I'd say that would be a plus for Harriet Miers.