Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats - Page 10 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #91 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-07-2005, 08:18 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
I know you missed this....

REAGAN'S BIGGEST MISTAKE FINALLY RETIRES
July 6, 2005

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.

Showing what a tough job it is to be president, when Bush announced O'Connor's resignation, he called her "a discerning and conscientious judge and a public servant of complete integrity." I assume he was reading from the script originally drafted for Justice Rehnquist's anticipated resignation, but still, he said it.

Cleverly, Bush also made a big point of noting that Reagan appointed O'Connor, reminding people that whatever mistakes Bush may have made, at least he didn't appoint O'Connor.

It's hard to say which of O'Connor's decisions was the worst. It's like asking people to name their favorite Beatle or favorite (unaborted) child.

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.

Others say her worst decisions came in the area of religion. 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.

Among the tines to the "endorsement" prong is the "outsider" test, requiring that the government not make a nonbeliever feel like an "outsider." But wait! There are spikes on those tines!

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.

Processing the religion cases through the meat grinder of her own multipart tests, O'Connor found it was unconstitutional for a Reform rabbi to give a nonsectarian prayer at a high school graduation. It was also unconstitutional for a courthouse in Kentucky to display a framed Ten Commandments along with other historical documents.

In the latter case, 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: "(T)o 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 (risibly titled Bowers v. Hardwick), O'Connor specifically cited criticism of Bowers as a reason to overrule it. "(C)riticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing," O'Connor explained in her concurrence. When "a case's foundations have sustained serious erosion, criticism from other sources is of greater significance."

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

For all the blather about O'Connor's moderation and pragmatism and motherly instincts, Mommie Dearest signed on to the most monstrous opinion in the history of the court, Stenberg v. Carhart, which proclaimed a heretofore unnoticed constitutional right to puncture the skull of a half-delivered baby and suction its brains out — just as the framers so clearly intended.

In her 2003 memoir, Miss Pragmatic-Consensus wrote, "Humility is the most difficult virtue," which perhaps explains why she never attempted it.

Every human being on the globe has heard the lachrymose tale of O'Connor being offered the job of secretary after her graduation from Stanford Law School. Bushmen in Africa weep at the unfairness of it all — though not as bitterly as O'Connor does.

O'Connor spent the last quarter-century paying America back. With no offense intended to the nonbelievers who are "reasonable observers" embodying "a community ideal of social judgment, as well as rational judgment," thank God the punishment is finally over.

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-07-2005, 08:21 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Dang -- and I thought the skank just loathed liberals. Turns out she loathes just about everyone, eh? [:D]

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #93 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-07-2005, 08:42 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Didn't seem favorably disposed toward O'Connor, that's for sure. Just a wild guess here, but I'll bet she has a problem with at least 4 other justices.
Botnst is offline  
post #94 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-07-2005, 08:53 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Well, she isn't exactly a "feel the love" person, is she? That's exactly why I have no use for her. People who constantly focus on what they don't like should just be quiet. Oh well, what the hell do I know anyway?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #95 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-08-2005, 05:15 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Quote:
GermanStar - 7/7/2005 10:53 PM

....People who constantly focus on what they don't like should just be quiet. ....
Interesting observation, that. If it were a more wide-spread belief, the world would be better for it. Where should we begin making it happen?
Botnst is offline  
post #96 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-08-2005, 05:37 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Let's line all the negative bastards up and shoot 'em. [:D]

Hell, I don't know -- but you know what I mean. In the context of these discussion boards for example, it's much easier and much more common to generate negative posts -- it's human nature to lean toward discussing matters of displeasure in this venue. Still, I try to point out people and posts that impress me in one way or another and acknowledge positives, and I notice others, including you, doing the same from time to time. I think these things are more easily vocalized than written, unfortunately. In conclusion, I have no idea -- I'm just babbling, but I would have a bit more respect for the likes of Coulter if she put a little more effort into acknowledging positives -- but then she would probably lose readership, right?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #97 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-08-2005, 06:05 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Quote:
Botnst - 7/8/2005 6:15 PM

Quote:
GermanStar - 7/7/2005 10:53 PM

....People who constantly focus on what they don't like should just be quiet. ....
Interesting observation, that. If it were a more wide-spread belief, the world would be better for it. Where should we begin making it happen?
Pst! Look in the mirror yet again pops!
Shane is offline  
post #98 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-08-2005, 07:35 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Quote:
Shane - 7/8/2005 8:05 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 7/8/2005 6:15 PM

Quote:
GermanStar - 7/7/2005 10:53 PM

....People who constantly focus on what they don't like should just be quiet. ....
Interesting observation, that. If it were a more wide-spread belief, the world would be better for it. Where should we begin making it happen?
Pst! Look in the mirror yet again pops!
Back-off sonny-boy, I'm holding it for Ron.
Botnst is offline  
post #99 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-08-2005, 08:01 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Mirror, mirror in Bot's hand.
Who's the kindest of the banned?
jjl, KV or Z?
It surely isn't you or me.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #100 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Quote:
GermanStar - 7/8/2005 7:37 PM

Let's line all the negative bastards up and shoot 'em. [:D]

G!!!! I'm shocked you would say such a thing. How very.......anti-gun of you.

aborted Shop Forum member

azimuth is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome