Ann Coulter: Reagan's biggest mistake finally retires

World Net Daily
July 6, 2005
Ann Coulter

The fundamental goal of the next Supreme Court justice should be to create a record that would not inspire Sen. Chuck Schumer to say, as he did of Justice O’Connor last week: “We hope the president chooses someone thoughtful, mainstream, pragmatic – someone just like Sandra Day O’Connor.” That’s our litmus test: We will accept only judicial nominees violently opposed by Chuck Schumer . . .

Of course, it was often hard to say what her decision was, period. In lieu of clear rules, or what we used to call “law,” O’Connor preferred conjuring up five-part balancing tests that settled nothing. That woman could never make up her mind!

In a quarter-century on the highest court in the land, O’Connor will have left no discernible mark on the law, other than littering the U.S. Reports with a lot of long-winded versions of the legal proposition: “It depends.”

Some say her worst opinion was Grutter v. Bollinger, which introduced a constitutional rule with a “DO NOT USE AFTER XXXX DATE.” After delivering a four-part test for when universities are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race (a culturally biased test if ever there was one), O’Connor incomprehensibly added: “The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

So now constitutional rules come with expiration dates, bringing to mind the image of O’Connor proffering one of her written opinions to Justice Scalia and asking, “Does this smell bad to you?” Strangely enough, she failed to specify which month and day in the year 2028 that affirmative action would no longer be justifiable under the Constitution.

In determining the constitutionality of religious displays on public property and government aid to religion, Justice O’Connor evidently decided she preferred her own words, “entanglement” and “endorsement,” to the Constitution’s word “establishment.”

No one could ever understand O’Connor’s special two-prong entanglement/endorsement test – including Justice O’Connor. Over the years, she struggled to resuscitate her own test by continually adding more tines to the prongs . . .

O’Connor discovered a spike off the Feelings tine of the Endorsement prong, which requires the court’s evaluation of the feelings of the nonbeliever to be based on a “reasonable observer” who embodies “a community ideal of social judgment, as well as rational judgment.”

It’s often said that O’Connor’s problem is that she is not a judge, but a legislator. On the basis of her bright idea to replace 10 blindingly clear words in the Constitution (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) with a 40-page manual of flow charts and two-pronged, four-tined, six-spiked tests, she wouldn’t have made much of legislator, either. O’Connor’s real calling was as a schoolyard bully, maliciously making up rules willy-nilly as she went along . .

In … McCreary v. ACLU, O’Connor haughtily added this bit of advice to religious believers: Visionaries “held their faith ‘with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar.’”

Religion may be able to get along without the government, but apparently sodomy and abortion cannot. Those, O’Connor found, were special rights protected by the Constitution.

O’Connor took sadistic glee in refusing to overturn Roe v. Wade in the face of the unending strife it has caused the nation. (And it hasn’t been easy on 30 million aborted babies either.)

She co-authored the opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey which upheld Roe v. Wade, gloating: “To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason … would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.” Yes, the court has really crowned itself in glory with those abortion decisions.

At least she would not overrule a precedent for something as trivial as a human life. Overruling a precedent would require a really, really compelling value like our right to sodomize one another.

Thus, in the recent sodomy case Lawrence v. Texas, which overruled an earlier case that had found no constitutional right to sodomy . . .

Mercifully, O’Connor was concurring only in Lawrence, so there is no multipronged test for sodomy under the Constitution.

full text

Pithy article!

I had no idea that Justice O’Connor was as squirrelly on the job as she was during interviews. There she described her delight at her potential husband’s discomfort when her father insisted her beau eat fried mountain oysters at the site of the castrations.

She fits the role of Mommy Dearest, as Coulter described.

Great, Coulter running her mouth again.

She’s a bit New Yorky but doesn’t degrade herself like Al Frankin who told Air America listeners about where he put his genitalia as proof of non-discrimination.

[quote=Lizzie]She’s a bit New Yorky but doesn’t degrade herself like Al Frankin who told Air America listeners about where he put his genitalia as proof of non-discrimination.
[/quote]

I agree with you about not degrading herself, but she does have this attitude that she can say nothing wrong.

[quote=wabrams]I agree with you about not degrading herself, but she does have this attitude that she can say nothing wrong.
[/quote]

Tell me what she said here that was wrong.

[quote=Lizzie]Tell me what she said here that was wrong.
[/quote]

Her opinion of Grutter v. Bollinger mostly.

[quote=wabrams]Her opinion of Grutter v. Bollinger mostly.
[/quote]

Please be specific. Why do you say such?

[quote=Lizzie]Please be specific. Why do you say such?
[/quote]

That affirmative action shouldn’t be indefinate. Put a sunset provision on it so we are forced to re-evaluate its effectiveness.

[quote=wabrams]That affirmative action shouldn’t be indefinate. Put a sunset provision on it so we are forced to re-evaluate its effectiveness.
[/quote]

To put a sunset provision in law is the role of a legislature, not a court. O’Connor was wrong. An admission policy is not constitutional one year unconstitutional the next. That is absurd and proves she was legislating from the bench.

Affirmative action is unconstitutional anyways. And, no I don’t care what the Supremes say. State sanctioned discrimination by race is abhorrent to our constitution.

I just read the decision. Political correct arrogant nonsense. For instance:

“The Law School engages in a highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s file, giving serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment . . .(the) School’s race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants.”

Bet O’Connor would have a different view if she or one of her close relatives didn’t get into law school because of the color of their skin. Bet she would not dismiss it so lightly.

To discriminate by color of skin is ok on if it is time-limited?

Please tell me where this is adressed in the constitution?

Our local Catholic newspaper had an article about O’Connor and quoted from some past correspondence indicating that the Bishops were quite wary of her positions on life issues BEFORE she was a Supreme Court Justice. They were right. Much as I love President Reagan, I think his or the party’s desire to curry favor with women and limit the pool to only one sex was a disservice to this country. The woman was as squirrely as those little critters laying waste to my bird feeder.

Funny how they think that appointing a woman will immediately make women happy. Baloney. I cannot think of a single appointment that was more disgraceful than Ruth Bader Ginsberg (who bears an UNCANNY resemblence to the Wicked Witch of the West in the original Wizard of Oz). THat she has two X chromosomes does not mean a thing to me. That she was an attorney for the Atrocious Communist Lawyers Union does.

Lisa N

[quote=Lizzie]To discriminate by color of skin is ok on if it is time-limited?

Please tell me where this is addressed in the constitution?
[/quote]

Just read the dissent. Justice Thomas thinks it is not addressed:

I believe that the Law School’s current use of race violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Constitution means the same thing today as it will in 300 months.

Justice Scalia in dissent:

. . .the University of Michigan Law School’s mystical “critical mass” justification for its discrimination by race challenges even the most gullible mind. The admissions statistics show it to be a sham to cover a scheme of racially proportionate admissions.

Justice Thomas in dissent:

Frederick Douglass, speaking to a group of abolitionists almost 140 years ago, delivered a message lost on today’s majority:

  "In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! ... And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! ... Your interference is doing him positive injury."

Like Douglass, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators. Because I wish to see all students succeed whatever their color, I share, in some respect, the sympathies of those who sponsor the type of discrimination advanced by the University of Michigan Law School .

The Constitution does not, however, tolerate institutional devotion to the status quo in admissions policies when such devotion ripens into racial discrimination . . .

[quote=wabrams]Her opinion of Grutter v. Bollinger mostly.
[/quote]

So, in your opinion, her opinion about O’Connor’s decision in that case is wrong.

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

[quote=David_Paul] To put a sunset provision in law is the role of a legislature, not a court. O’Connor was wrong. An admission policy is not constitutional one year unconstitutional the next. That is absurd and proves she was legislating from the bench.
[/quote]

I completely agree it should have fallen to the legislature, but do you think they would honestly do that?

[quote=David_Paul] Affirmative action is unconstitutional anyways. And, no I don’t care what the Supremes say. State sanctioned discrimination by race is abhorrent to our constitution.
[/quote]

I couldn’t agree with you more.

[quote=David_Paul] Bet O’Connor would have a different view if she or one of her close relatives didn’t get into law school because of the color of their skin. Bet she would not dismiss it so lightly.
[/quote]

I remember losing a scholarship because I was white and from a middle class family.

[quote=Lizzie]To discriminate by color of skin is ok on if it is time-limited?

Please tell me where this is adressed in the constitution?
[/quote]

It’s not ok to discriminate at all. But affirmative action is too touchy an issue for politicians to mess with.

[quote=wabrams]It’s not ok to discriminate at all. But affirmative action is too touchy an issue for politicians to mess with.
[/quote]

and abortion… and cloning,… and gay marriage…

sounds like politicians are afraid to mess with anything that requires a moral conscience or natural law decision. Too bad… for us.

[quote=wabrams]It’s not ok to discriminate at all.
[/quote]

So, IOW, Justice O’Connor was wrong in her decision. Which would make Coulter’s criticism of O’Connor’s decision more or less correct.

– Mark L. Chance.

[quote=Lisa N]I cannot think of a single appointment that was more disgraceful than Ruth Bader Ginsberg (who bears an UNCANNY resemblence to the Wicked Witch of the West in the original Wizard of Oz). THat she has two X chromosomes does not mean a thing to me. That she was an attorney for the Atrocious Communist Lawyers Union does.
[/quote]

That she is unattractive also seems to mean something to you.

You argue so rationally generally. Criticism on the basis of looks is very much unlike you. Bad hair day, probably. :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.