Democrats Advice to Bush: Keep Your Judges Off My Judiciary!

Ann Coulter | 2000/06/05

Let me start by saying--I love speaking on college campuses. The environments are so hegemonically left-wing that any students who bring me to speak are invariably the rebels. They're always bright, politically active, and appear to wake up every morning thinking: What can I do today to annoy liberals? Apparently, bringing me to speak is one of the popular options.

Politics has gotten rather boring of late--what with the president not being a felon. So I thought I'd cheer you up by telling you we can look forward to World War III when Bush announces his first Supreme Court nominee.

The New York Times has been nostalgically reminiscing about Clinton's--quote—“centrist judicial choices” and denouncing the wild-eyed ideologues it assumes will be favored by Bush. Indeed, the entire Rainbow Coalition is on red alert in anticipation of George Bush appointing judges who agree with him, rather than them.

Ralph G. Neas, president of People For the American Way said, "There is more at stake in these nominations than ever before in our history." (Can you imagine the hue and cry if an actually patriotic organization called itself that?)

Evidently, there aren't a lot of Americans who believe in “the American Way”; otherwise liberals wouldn't have to demand federal judges who invent ludicrous “constitutional rights” that the American people would never vote for.

Neas, along with the ACLU, the ABA, La Raza, and--the most vicious left-wing propaganda machine of all--the media, insist their Soviet agitprop against strict constructionists has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. No. They say they evaluate judges solely on the basis of their respect for the Constitution. As Neas put it: “The Senate owes its first allegiance to the American people and to the Constitution."

By “Constitution” he means every crackpot “right” liberals have been able to sneak into Supreme Court opinions in the last fifty years. And there are lots of them: rights for killers, pornographers, stinky homeless people, transsexuals, and nonsmokers. The “Constitution” is oddly silent, however, on the rights of babies, crime victims, law-abiding citizens, and property-owners.

But liberals can't admit that what they mean by “constitutional rights” is a collection of ideological victories completely unconnected to the language of the Constitution. Otherwise the American people would be against (drumroll): “the American Way.”

So liberals speak in code:

· “Constitutional rights” = the entire ideological agenda of the ACLU

· “Privacy rights” = sticking a fork in a baby's head

· “Ideologues” = people who don't see anything allowing the destruction of fetus brains in the Constitution

· “Moderates” = people who believe the Constitution strictly prohibits punishing criminals

· “Centrist” = certifiably insane

Now New York Times editorials will make sense to you.

“Centrist” law professor, Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago, has written an hysterical jeremiad in the New York Times about the danger of conservative judges “who would interpret the Constitution...in a way that promotes [their] agenda.”

But the only “agenda” strict constructionists have is to return to a constitutional democracy so we can live in freedom and decide issues for ourselves.

Hallucinating history, just like the liberals' pet judges hallucinate “constitutional rights,” Sunstein complained about the Republican juggernaut stopping all the “centrists” nominated to the federal bench by Clinton.

Sunstein says Republicans “did whatever they could to block Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees. Meanwhile, Democratic senators unwilling to base rejection of nominees on political disagreements, have usually deferred to

Republican presidents.”

Maybe they just hated Clarence Thomas because he was black. Still, Sunstein insists, Democrats have been “remarkably passive.”

One more definition:

“Passive” = willing to start World War III

Let's review the record on Clinton's “centrist” judges.

One of Clinton's “centrist” choices, Judge H. Lee Sarokin, found that a homeless man had a constitutional right to stink up libraries and frighten patrons with his obsessive staring. The "offensive odor" standard at the library violated the First Amendment apparently because it was a library and there are books in a library, which contain speech, which is protected by the First Amendment.

The No-Stinking-the-Place-Up rule also violated “substantive due process” (which doesn't exist) because the odor rule was a "reader-based restriction." And it violated the equal protection clause (which does exist) because of the "disparate impact" the rule had on people who refuse to bathe.

In a rousing summary that will go down in history with Justice Holmes's “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” Judge Sarokin wrote that instead of hoping to “shield our eyes and ears from the homeless... we should revoke their condition, not their library cards."

The Senate confirmed Sarokin's appointment to the Third Circuit, 63-35, on October 4, 1994. A few years later, Sarokin petulantly retired when the court unaccountably refused to let him sit in California on the opposite side of the country from the Third Circuit, which covers New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.

Another centrist Clinton judge, Harold Baer Jr., received nationwide attention a few years ago for his ruling that there was no “probable cause” to arrest suspects who flee at the sight of police officers while loading bags into the trunk of a car late at night in a high drug-trafficking area. Baer explained that, in that neighborhood, the police are viewed as “corrupt, abusive and violent.” Consequently, it was perfectly rational to run at the sight of them.

In addition to any vague feelings of ill-will the defendants might have harbored toward law enforcement, they evidently also had reason to flee that particular night on account of the 80 pounds of cocaine in their possession.

This, Judge Baer excluded from evidence. He later reversed himself--but only because it was a presidential election year and he was about to become the next Willie Horton.

The Republican juggernaut against Clinton's judicial nominees led to a unanimous Senate confirmation for Judge Baer who was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 9, 1994.

On the basis of her habit of apologizing to criminals during sentencing, District Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor had earned wide acclaim as a “centrist” long before Clinton elevated her to a federal appeals court. While sentencing one drug-dealer, she said: “[W]e all understand that you were in part a victim of the economic necessities of our society; unfortunately there are laws that I must impose.”

She told another convicted drug trafficker: “It is no comfort to you for me to say that I am deeply, personally sorry about the sentence that I must impose, because the law requires me to do so. The only statement I can make is this is one more example of an abomination being committed before our sight. You do not deserve this, sir.”

It may have been the “sir” that kept it from being unanimous. Sotomayor was confirmed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a 68-28 vote.

Judge Diane Wood, centrist judge put on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by Clinton, found that failure to provide a prisoner with a smoke-free environment constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Another centrist Clinton choice, Judge Robert Henry, held that it was cruel and unusual punishment for the state to deny sex change hormone treatment for a transsexual prisoner.

Every time you hear the words “centrist,” “moderate,” “mainstream,” just remember: This is what they mean.

Related Subjects:

Judiciary

updates via email
Twitter YouTube Rss
Facebook