Comments

  1. says

    “The conservative who cried wolf!”

    Isn’t this amazing? Who are the ones always hollering about activist Judges when a court verdict doesn’t go their way (ie., Prop 8)? Suddenly they are supporting the court system?? Bet if the SCOTUS was solidly liberal in their stance, the conservatives would be whooping and hollering about any and all judgements coming from them. Will be interesting if Obamacare is deemed legal. Who then will be complaining about the SCOTUS???

  2. David T says

    This is either the height of ignorance or a severe lack of understanding. There is legal interpretation of laws from both democratic and conservative judges. I teach my law students as much, with solid examples of both through case study.

    What’s more troubling is that a pundit can say whatever they want, apparently unchallenged by someone with a better understanding of our legal system, or at least by someone more genuine.

  3. Chris says

    I wonder if Ann is aware that we live in a republic, not a democracy. That and I really want to hear her complain about the judicial activism of cases like Brown v. Board of Education, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, or even Lawrence v. Texas.

  4. Paul R says

    She clearly just says weird crap to get attention because that’s all she cares about. She’s smart enough to do better but long ago learned that she won’t go broke pandering to idiots.

    That said, aside from gay issues, her comments on abortion and Miranda rights are so f’ing stupid. Like I need to say that.

  5. Tagg says

    I wish some would just ask these nut jobs (fill in the blank)what their opinions are going to be if SCOTUS affirms the ACA? Are they going to accept the ruling as a valid decision or will it be another example of “Activist judges”?!! They need this on tape before it is announced so they cant back track. Either they respect SCOTUS or they dont!

  6. says

    Any first year law student learns that there are enumerated rights in every constitution. This is not a new or particularly USA jurisprudential point….yet she makes it sound like high treason.

    She is a poisonous cadaver, bent on sowing seeds of division………ably assisted by the Goebbels run Ministry of Propaganda, that calls itself a new channel,Fox.

  7. ian says

    she’s expressing the fascist belief that rights do not exist except as defined by the state. it is the exact opposite of what is in the constitution. rights, in the constitution, are inalienable, in other words each person, simply by existing, has every right (except to harm others) and it is up to the state to make the case that a particular right should not be allowed, usually because of some perceived harm to society or national security, real or not. the courts role is to either uphold a restriction on citizens rights by the state if it finds there is a legitimate reason for doing so, or deny the state the ability to retract rights if it finds there is no legitimate reason for doing so. marriage equality is a perfect example: each adult person already has the right to marry whomever they want regardless of gender. the state is denying that right to it’s citizens and must make the case there is legitimate reason for doing so, and clearly is failing. fascism argues that individuals do not have rights. rights are dispensed by the state and so it is up to the citizens to make the case that the state should allow a particular right, and that seldom happens via the court system in a fascist state, but through revolution. i may be wrong, but i think it is the 6th amendment to the bill of rights that states basically, that because a right is not enumerated in the bill of rights does not mean it doesn’t exist. i wonder, what coulter or hannity would make of that, if they had ever bothered to read the constitution or bill or rights, or the declaration of independence.

  8. Steerpike says

    Jeez, Secratariat is really putting that degree in Constitutional Law from the U of M to good use. A properly God-fearing conservative woman would be married and raising Christian Republican kids by now, not spouting off on TV. Liberal values made possible everything you have and everything you are, you noisy boneheap.

  9. says

    Yeah, it’s the left that created such “rights” as the right of corporations to pump unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns, or the right of everyone in America to be strip-searched because a cop felt like it.

    Oh, wait. . . .

  10. Steerpike says

    How is it possible that Hannity looks PRECISELY the same whenever you catch him in a still? He always looks like Nathan Lane doing a Jimmy Cagney impersonation.

  11. Dan Cobb says

    There’s plenty of judicial activism on the extreme right. Ann just happens to agree with those decisions so she doesn’t see it as “activist”. She doesn’t realize that activist court decisions have taken the meaning of the “right to bear arms as a part of a well regulated militia” and turned that into you can bear arms without a militia! How’s that for right-wing activism, Anne?

  12. Bob says

    “Secretariat” and “boneheap” – made me wet m’knickers!!
    Has Coulter transitioned yet? Or is she waiting for better health care? Don’t worry Anne, when ACA is all said and done, you’ll be able to finish up.

  13. Caliban says

    Aww, how sweet. GOProud’s favorite diva hauled her withered carcass onto Fox News once again to spew her nonsensical bull****. The far-Right’s Marilyn Monroe, tailor-made for those who think screwing a bag of sharpened pencils sounds like a blast, especially when it howls like something out of Irish myth.

  14. anon says

    This does not explain the conservative majority on the CA supreme court. Rights are almost always threatened by political extremists–it doesn’t matter the flavor. She’s not being particularly coherent, either.

  15. BobN says

    The right to marriage is fundamental. The only thing liberals have done — and that Coulter hates — is point out that nothing in the Constitution allows the right to marriage to be withheld from consenting adults.

  16. Matt says

    Coulter is just trying to stay relevant. No one has mentioned her name recently so she feels she need to stir the pot to get noticed. Being a provocateur is her schtick.
    Ignore her!

  17. John says

    You uneducated illiterate Witch! The role of the United States Supreme Court is to determine the Constitutionality of LAW. Since many americans are without fundamental medical care because of decisions made in corporate meeting rooms and the cost is outrageous it is up to
    Congress and the President to pass laws that make medical insurance available to all. If marriage is offered to one group of people then it must be constitutionally mandated that all Americans be afforded the same opportunity. Because of the privacy clause in the Bill of Rights, a woman’s right to choose what to do with her uterus
    is guaranteed.

  18. David Hearn says

    The most frustrating thing about this discussion is the need of some people to find and defend a side, rather than to look at each case objectively. Let’s face it, there might not be a lot of law behind some of the things that we want. We can defend our position as “right” or “fair” but these words have no meaning in the law. To date, I have never seen a gay rights case go to court behind the most obvious logic: that to discriminate against gay people is either religious discrimination or sex discrimination. You either want to discriminate because your religion tells you to, or because you think it’s OK to prohibit two men from doing what a man and a woman could do.

    Do not fool yourselves that Democrats are the superior legal mind by default. Hate speech laws are unconstitutional, and it’s Republicans who oppose them. Hate crimes laws are unconstitutional, the crimes themselves are already against the law, the prejudices of the actor is not relevant.

    On the other hand it was the conservative majority on the court which allows police roadblocks and sobriety checkpoints which are clearly unconstitutional. See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

  19. says

    of course republicans oppose hate-speech legislations. that would get rid of all their speech. 😀

    <— proud Canadian whose country of origin has had hate-speech laws on the books for twenty years.

    when one’s right to say something comes at the expense of someone else’s safety and wellbeing the question is then what’s more important? that a person has the “right” to say ________, or the reality that by that person saying _________ they put a targeted group at risk? what does one lose by specifically not saying ________? nothing? and the targeted group will lose something by having _______ said?

    it’s a process of intellectual discernment, not merely “i don’t like what you say so i’m going to insist it’s hate speech”

    but hey, this will be lost one many. usually the type of dunces who still believe what Fox News says, and that climate change isn’t happening.

  20. GeorgeM says

    Why don’t you become a lawyer david and take care of it for us, until then we do ok. Those who have fought for us, mostly dems and some repubs have done a great job moving us forward. We need to stop talking about this beast, she’ll go away

  21. David Hearn says

    “proud Canadian whose country of origin has had hate-speech laws on the books for twenty years.

    when one’s right to say something comes at the expense of someone else’s safety and wellbeing the question is then what’s more important? that a person has the “right” to say ________, or the reality that by that person saying _________ they put a targeted group at risk? what does one lose by specifically not saying ________? nothing? and the targeted group will lose something by having _______ said?

    it’s a process of intellectual discernment, not merely “i don’t like what you say so i’m going to insist it’s hate speech”

    For clarity, I just read the Canadian hate speech laws. Section 319 would be especially troubling to any American, but I suppose that’s why it’s the ACLU and not the CCLU. I should think that many people you admire in the US would be guilty of a crime under 319 in Canada since they:

    • communicate statements,
    • in a public place,
    • incite hatred against an identifiable group,
    • in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

    The First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech; popular speech doesn’t need protection. The ACLU position on “hate speech” is this:

    ACLU: Fight Hate Speech with More Speech

    I’m glad you like Canada, and that you are there.

  22. says

    Hannity – who after there were two same-sex kisses shown at the Oscars went on a tirade about how “sexuality” was being forced onto people; because straight kisses don’t force things on anyone.

    Hannity – who only has a problem with the message of the Westboro Baptist Church when they picked the funerals of straight soldiers. he even said to them, when they were on his program “Look, I don’t like them (gays) either”

    Coulter – an anti-woman woman, and a hero to GOProud. of course they love her. she demeans them, and they love it. bunch of sick white moneyed puppies who soil themselves to appear harmless.

  23. GeorgeM says

    Lol it’s weird seeing my state senators pic on here. I guess ct wants to raise the min wage… Great another long fight. My dems however outlawed capital punishment, what the eff
    Off topic sorry

  24. says

    there’s a difference between “unpopular speech” and speech that exists for no other reason than to incite hatred toward a specifically targeted group..

    Canadians understand this. Like we understood that slavery was wrong, women deserve the right to vote, and that LGBT people deserve full and true Equality. A longstanding history of being on the right side of progressivism.

    If you cannot tell the difference between “unpopular speech” and speech that exists solely to promote and incite targeted hatred, then you’re probably someone who also thinks that being tolerated for being gay is the same as being accepted.

    alas, it aint.

  25. David Hearn says

    KIWI-

    Who decides which speech crosses the line? You? Sorry, but we have seen hate speech laws in action. Geert Wilders banned from entering England while Robert Mugabe, an actual murderer is received. Governments making decisions based on threats by minority groups rather than standing up for freedom of speech.

    There isn’t a lot to be proud of about that.

    We have our problems here, no doubt. Right now, the elements have been on the warpath for a couple of weeks. As long as they aren’t hurting people or damaging property directly they are within their rights. It is not for us, regardless of how true it is, to decide that human garbage like Al Sharpton and Len Jeffries, “Malik Shabazz”, Lawrence O’Donnell, Amy Goodman, or Louis Farrakhan are breeding violence by their speech.

  26. says

    “To date, I have never seen a gay rights case go to court behind the most obvious logic: that to discriminate against gay people is either religious discrimination or sex discrimination. You either want to discriminate because your religion tells you to, or because you think it’s OK to prohibit two men from doing what a man and a woman could do.”

    Obviously, you haven’t followed the DOMA and marriage cases working their way through the Courts (where we’re winning, BTW, now thanks in part to the Obama DOJ), because they’re all based on obvious logic, which is why there is no rational argument against our side, even if Boehner’s BLAG will try to fake one.

    As for Ann Coulter, she’s like a washed up performer who’s been on the stage for too long and has become tragic. That’s all she’s ever been–a performer–and the act is really tired. Gong her and fetch the lasso.

Leave A Reply