[Paleopsych] Ann Coulter: Starved for Justice

Premise Checker checker at panix.com
Wed Mar 30 19:34:39 UTC 2005

Ann Coulter: Starved for Justice
http://anncoulter.com/ [not permanent]
    March 24, 2005

    Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1)
    prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock,
    Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal
    gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and
    (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization
    So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to
    stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in
    Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about
    the use of military force only when it's against Americans.
    In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force
    was in direct contravention of court rulings. Admittedly, this was a
    very long time ago -- back in U.S. history when the judiciary was only
    one of the three branches of our government. Democratic Gov. Orval
    Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard expressly for purposes
    of defying rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts.
    The decadent buffoon Bill Clinton sent armed agents from the INS to
    seize a small boy from an American family -- despite rulings by the
    majestic and infallible Florida courts granting custody of the boy to
    that very family.
    None of these exercises of military force has gone down in history as
    a noble moment, but that's because of the underlying purpose of the
    force, not the fact that force was used.
    To the contrary, what has gone down in history as a glorious moment
    for the republic was when President Dwight Eisenhower (Republican)
    called out military force of his own. In response to Gov. Faubus'
    abuse of the National Guard, Eisenhower simultaneously revoked Faubus'
    control of the National Guard and ordered the 101st Airborne Division
    to escort black students to school. (Minutes later, Democrats
    pronounced the Arkansas public schools a "hopeless quagmire" and
    demanded to know what Ike's exit strategy was.)
    As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to
    desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri
    Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?
    Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely
    disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are
    prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."
    I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states'
    rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law
    passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature -- or
    anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals
    mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers
    to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as
    determined by a court."
    As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in
    interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a
    pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the
    concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word.
    Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn
    to uphold the law, too.
    It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding
    court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice
    borne of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater
    flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call
    their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal
    provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public
    prayer and Ten Commandments displays.
    Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly
    incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote
    is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved
    to death at the request of her adulterous husband.
    Florida state court judge George Greer - last heard from when he
    denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband
    stabbed her to death -- determined that Terri would have wanted to be
    starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then
    living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the
    positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The
    husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen
    was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two
    children with another woman.
    Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain
    damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of
    important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet
    to receive either an MRI or a PET scan -- although she may be allowed
    to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill
    Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her
    husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as
    precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout
    the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never
    permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up
    defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.
    Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash
    assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be
    shot at her husband's request -- a more humane death, by the way --
    the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the
    court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism."
    President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would
    send in the state police.
    What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the
    most dangerous -- literally to the point of ordering an innocent
    American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional
    subpoenas. They can't be stopped -- solely because the entire country
    has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as
    the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps
    when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the
    black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green
    leisure suits.)
    President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court
    ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let
    him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the
    republic survived.
    If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts
    that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican
    governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary.
    Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the
    Massachusetts Supreme Court's miraculous discovery of a right to gay
    marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn't stop the torture and
    murder of Terri Schiavo.

More information about the paleopsych mailing list