Supreme Court Overturns First Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Dec 10, 2003.

  1. It's no secret I am no fan of this Supreme Court. Some members are fairly sound. Justices Scalia and Thomas are committed to reading the actual words of the Constitution, a task most of the other members have discarded in favor of reading the NY Times editorial page. Whatever.

    The Court's recent decisions have evidenced no sound doctrinal foundation. Basically they are all over the place. They ruled the University of Michigan could discriminate on the basis of race, provided they were somewhat circumspect about it. Oh, and Justice O'Connor added they should stopin about 25 years. That is constitutional law? They ruled that a state could not prohibit homosexual sex, after ruling exactly the opposite a few years earlier. The one guiding principle of the Court has been that there is no guiding principle, just whatever 5 members seem to think sounds like a good idea. The past giants of the Court, like both Justice Harlans, Justice Frankfurter, even the wily Justice Brandeis, must be hanging their heads in embarrassment for what has happened to their beloved institution.

    Now the Court has truly made a name for itself. It has rendered a decision that makes the Massachustetts Supreme Court's gay marriage decision look like a model of judicial reasoning. If possible, it has surpassed even the storied clunkers from the Court's long history, abominations like Dredd Scott and Roe v. Wade.

    The Court has apparently ruled that the campaign finance law is largely constitutional. The law covers many aspects of campaign finance, but one provision had been almost universely assumed to be clearly unconstitutional. That was the provision that barred ads in the 30 day period leading up to an election from outside groups, unless such ads were paid for with so-called hard money contributions. It is no secret that many congressmen voted for the bill with the understanding that this provision was sure to be thrown out by the courts.

    It is odious because it restricts the free speech rights of ordinary citizens, while doing nothing to impede the ability of the media to influence campaigns, with editorials or slanted coverage. In effect it makes anyone who doesn't own a media outlet a second class citizen in terms of free speech. A giant corporation like Disney, which owns huge businesses in various sectors of the economy, has unlimited free speech rights because it owns a media outlet, but issue groups like the NRA, environmental groups, retired people, both sides of the abortion issue, etc are muzzled.

    This is not really a liberal/conservative dispute. Liberals generally are in favor of free speech, at least as long as they agree with it, and conservatives are skeptical of government restrictions on campaign finance. So who favors this draconian limitation on citizens' ability to criticize government? Mainly incumbents. They enjoy name recognition and don't like having their advantages infringed by pesky interest groups. So chalk up another win for the big government crowd, courtesy of an increasingly out to lunch Supreme Court.
  2. Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court:

    "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.

    In the past few years, federal courts have proclaimed a right to sodomy (not in the Constitution), a right to partial-birth abortion (not in the Constitution), a right not to have a Democratic governor recalled (not in the Constitution), a right not to gaze upon the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse (not in the Constitution), a ban on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (not in the Constitution), and a ban on voluntary student prayers at high-school football games (not in the Constitution).

    These bizarre rulings illustrate the notion of the Constitution as a "living document," one which rejects timeless moral principles so as to better reflect the storylines in this week's episode of "Ally McBeal." You may like or dislike the end result of these rulings, but – as subtly alluded to above – none of these rulings come from anything written in the Constitution.

    In response to the court's sodomy ruling last term, conservatives are talking about passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's really touching how conservatives keep trying to figure out what constitutional mechanisms are available to force the courts to acknowledge the existence of the Constitution. But what is the point of a constitutional amendment when judges won't read the Constitution we already have? What will the amendment say? "OK, no fooling around – we really mean it this time!"

    While conservatives keep pretending we live in a democracy, liberals are operating on the rule of the jungle. The idea of the rule of law is that if your daughter is raped and murdered, you won't go out and kill the guy who did it. In return for your forbearance, you get to vote for the rulers who will see that justice is done. But liberals cheat. They won't let us vote on an increasingly large number of issues by defining the entire universe – abortion, gay marriage, high-school convocations – as a "constitutional" issue.

    In what weird parallel universe would Americans vote for abortion on demand, affirmative action, forced busing, licensing of gun owners and a ban on the death penalty? Whatever dangers lurk in a self-governing democracy, the American people have never, ever passed a law that led to the murder of 30 million unborn children.

    Judges are not our dictators. The only reason the nation defers to rulings of the Supreme Court is because of the very Constitution the justices choose to ignore. At what point has the court made itself so ridiculous that we ignore it? What if the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to cannibalism? How about fascism? Does the nation respond by passing a constitutional amendment clearly articulating that there is no right to cannibalism or fascism in the Constitution?

    Is there nothing five justices on the Supreme Court could proclaim that would finally lead a president to say: I refuse to pretend this is a legitimate ruling. Either the answer is no, and we are already living under a judicial dictatorship, or the answer is yes, and – as Churchill said – we're just bickering over the price.

    It would be nice to return to our federalist system of government with three equal branches of government and 50 states, but one branch refuses to live within that system. How about taking our chances with a president and the Congress? Two branches are better than one.

    There may be practical difficulties with the president and the states ignoring the court's abortion rulings – though there's nothing unlawful about following the Constitution and I for one would love to see it. But there is absolutely no excuse for the Massachusetts legislature jumping when Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall says "jump."

    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!"

    Granted, one can imagine how a woman married to the likes of Anthony Lewis might long for the sanctuary of a same-sex union. But that's no reason to foist it on Massachusetts.

    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."
  3. Why does Ann Coulter bother speaking English? Why not just speak in Hebrew? After all, wasn't that the initial language of the Bible?

    At the very least she could speak in Greek or Latin.

    Shouldn't we all just go back to language, ideas, thinking, morals, etc. of the past?

    Why should we ever make any progress in society?

  4. ***In what weird parallel universe would Americans vote for abortion on demand, affirmative action, forced busing, licensing of gun owners and a ban on the death penalty? Whatever dangers lurk in a self-governing democracy, the American people have never, ever passed a law that led to the murder of 30 million unborn children.***

    Speaking of parallel universes, does Coulter actually think that most American voters are pro-life???

    I used to admire Coulter for her constructive Muzlim-bashing after 9/11, but now it seems like she's just gone off the deep end.
  5. actually, you can read many of her and buchannon's speeches in the original german. :D
  6. Printed on the original Gutenberg press, no doubt.

    Coulter is such a phony. She preaches a return to old fashion values, yet she dolls herself up like a cheap hooker and batts here eyelids like a slut when she on and tells the world how they should behave.
  7. [​IMG]

    Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure Special Edition

    Conservative lawyer Ann Coulter is a blond haired beauty with the brains and backbone to send the staunchest Liberal running for the hills.

    Ann’s unwavering quest to get to the truth often finds her trading blows with the Liberal establishment.

    Never one to shy away from a fight, Ann’s uses her wit and intelligence to chip away at the veneer of Liberal’s bias and reveal their true motives. She is their worst nightmare!

    This Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure is the perfect gift for die-hard conservatives or for your liberal friends who will just die when they have to face Ann.

    Ann is unafraid to take on liberals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the other "traitors" she says are selling out the country.

    Ann says she loves this replica of her.

    "I think it's terrific!" Ann says, "This action figure can talk, wear different outfits and hairstyles."

    But that's not all. Ann adds, "It also kills terrorist leaders and converts their followers to Christianity."

    The Ann Coulter figure is dressed in a single piece black dress, black high heels and gold earrings. The articulated figure bears a striking resemblance to its namesake - even down to Ann’s striking green eyes, long blond hair and determined look. Just like Ann, if you press the right button it will tell you exactly what it thinks, and it has plenty to say. “What are you Liberals afraid of? Let me talk.”

    The figure comes packaged in a clear front panel display box with biographical text and color photos of Ann decorating each side.
  8. Number one on my Christmas wish list.
  9. Ok, I'm lying. Number one would be a steel cage match between Ann and evil liberal troll Katie Couric.
  10. Damn, I thought you liked inflatable dolls. I hope I can get a refund or make an exchange!!!

    #10     Dec 10, 2003