Ann Coulter | Barack Obama | Gay Marriage | News | Sean Hannity | Supreme Court

Ann Coulter: Liberals Use 'Judicial Activism' to 'Invent Rights' Like Gay Marriage and Abortion — VIDEO

Coulter

In a discussion about Obama's remarks on the Supreme Court and judicial activism, Ann Coulter told FOX News' Sean Hannity that liberals use it to invent rights.

Said Coulter:

"Most of us learn how a bill becomes law and what the supreme court does in grade school. Liberals are often trying to push this idea that judicial review means overturning any act of Congress. Or rather judicial activism. Judicial activism is anything when the Supreme Court doesn’t obey what the constitution says — like when they invent rights to gay marriage or rights to abortion or rights to go free if a specific Miranda warning wasn’t read to them. Normally you get the opposite from liberals, because whatever they can’t get through the process of democracy by having people vote on it, they get five justices on the Supreme Court to announce it’s a constitutional right. You only have judicial activism on the left, never from the conservative justices or they would be fantasizing a constitutional right to a flat tax, to bear nuclear arms."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. 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

    Posted by: David Hearn | Apr 6, 2012 12:52:48 PM


  2. of course republicans oppose hate-speech legislations. that would get rid of all their speech. :D

    <--- 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.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Apr 6, 2012 1:02:08 PM


  3. And remember, she's GOProud's Judy Garland.

    Posted by: Daniel | Apr 6, 2012 1:18:26 PM


  4. does that mean she's gonna O.D. in the next 10 years? because i won't mind.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Apr 6, 2012 1:23:28 PM


  5. 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

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Apr 6, 2012 2:17:54 PM


  6. "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.

    Posted by: David Hearn | Apr 6, 2012 2:43:41 PM


  7. She's on a never ending book tour. She's become a very wealthy woman peddling her wacko extremist opinions.

    Posted by: Oliver | Apr 6, 2012 2:49:08 PM


  8. 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.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Apr 6, 2012 2:52:56 PM


  9. 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

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Apr 6, 2012 3:04:26 PM


  10. 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.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Apr 6, 2012 3:05:09 PM


  11. 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.

    Posted by: David Hearn | Apr 6, 2012 4:16:34 PM


  12. O'Donnell on msnbc? Explain?

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Apr 6, 2012 5:40:57 PM


  13. "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.

    Posted by: Ernie | Apr 6, 2012 6:01:08 PM


  14. Her hate is making her look really ragged and withered.

    Posted by: zeddy | Apr 6, 2012 11:13:18 PM


  15. Everone encourages judicial activism to push society in the directions with which they agree.

    Posted by: jack | Apr 7, 2012 10:02:58 AM


  16. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Obama - Romney Contest Moves into High Gear: VIDEOS« «