• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Lead Liberals to the Light

Help Support Ranchers.net:


Well-known member
Feb 14, 2005
Reaction score
Southern SD
Posted: April 27, 2005
8:20 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 Ann Coulter

Democrats are in an incomprehensible rage over the filibuster. DON'T STOP READING! I AM NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THE HISTORY OF THE FILIBUSTER! Republicans have got to learn to stop getting into technicalities with the Democrats. They win in the dark; we win in the light. And it doesn't get much darker than a discussion of the Senate filibuster.

It's no excuse that the Democrats are lying. They do that all the time. Republicans have got to learn to let it go.

In one sentence Republicans should state that the so-called "nuclear option" means: "Majority vote wins." (This is as opposed to the Democrats' mantra, which is "Our side always wins.")

I am sublimely confident that normal Americans will not be shocked to learn that a Republican Senate plans to confirm the judicial nominees of a Republican president –- despite the objections of radical elements of a party that is the minority in the Senate, the minority in the House, the loser in the last two presidential races, the minority in state governorships, and the minority in all but a tiny number of very small but densely populated enclaves in this country that need to tax Rush Limbaugh, even though he lives in another state, just to keep all their little socialist programs afloat.

The question Republicans need to ask is: Why do the Democrats want to keep judicial nominees like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen off the federal bench?

As I understand it, the reason Democrats are in a blind rage about Priscilla Owen is that, as a state court judge in Texas, Owen interpreted a law passed by the Texas Legislature requiring parental consent for 14-year-old girls to have abortions to mean that parental consent was required for 14-year-old girls to have abortions.

I think Americans need to hear Democrats explain that.

Democrats oppose Janice Rogers Brown because she's black. One cartoon on Blackcommentator.com shows President Bush introducing Brown to Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, with Bush saying, "Welcome to the bench, Ms. Clarence – I mean, Ms. Rogers Brown. You'll fit right in!"

Let's see, what do those four have in common? Two secretaries of state, a former general, a former professor and a Supreme Court justice ... What's the common thread? I know there's something – but what is it?

There's a whole array of groups opposed to Brown: People for the American Way, the National Women's Law Center, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Feminist Majority, the Aryan Nation and so on.

But their actual objections to Brown are somewhat opaque. The Web page of "People for a Small Slice of the Upper West Side Way" contains a lengthy diatribe on Brown's nightmarish extremism while managing never, ever to give one specific example. In fact, if you take out "Janice Rogers Brown" and replace it with "Tom DeLay," it makes just as much sense when you read it.

This is what we get by way of explanation on the horror show that is Janice Rogers Brown:

"ideological extremism"

"aggressive judicial activism"

"even further to the right than the most far-right justices"

"prone to inserting conservative political views into her appellate opinions"

"many disturbing dissents"

"a disturbing tendency to try to remake the law"

"extreme states' rights and anti-federal-government positions"

"working to push the law far to the right"

"doesn't hate America and all that it stands for"

OK, I made up that last one.

Conservatives never attack liberal judges this way. We simply say: He found the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional ... He found a right to gay marriage in a state constitution written in 1780 by John Adams ... He ruled that smelly homeless people have a constitutional right to stink up public libraries and scare patrons ... He excluded 80 pounds of cocaine found in the defendant's car on the grounds that it was reasonable to run from the police when the police are viewed as "corrupt, violent and abusive."

Democrats want to terrify people by claiming Bush's judicial nominees are nutcase extremists hell-bent on shredding the Constitution – as opposed to liberals' preferred method of simply rewriting it on a daily basis – but they're terrified that someone might ask them what they mean by "extremist." So let's ask!

If the details helped liberals, I promise you we'd be hearing the details. Most important, if liberals could win in the court of public opinion, they wouldn't need the federal courts to hand them their victories in the first place. The reason liberals refuse to elaborate on "extremist right-wing ideologue" is that they need liberal courts to give them gay marriage, a godless Pledge of Allegiance, abortion on demand, nude dancing, rights for pederasts, and everything else they could never win in America if it were put to a vote.

Republicans are letting them get away with it by allowing the debate on judges to consist of mind-numbing arguments about the history of the filibuster. Note to Republicans: Of your six minutes on television, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are "extreme."



Want to know what Ann Coulter is really like? New DVD documentary profiles the pretty woman behind the stinging barb and the quick wit. Now available in ShopNetDaily!
Gore doesn't see things quite like Ann does!

Nuclear Option Is 'Heresy,' Gore Says
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Correspondent
April 28, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- In a speech Wednesday to members of the MoveOn.org Political Action Committee, former Vice President Al Gore called possible attempts to change Senate rules on filibusters "a poison pill for America's democracy" and "a dangerous American heresy."
Gore's speech was part of a nationwide series of "emergency rallies" organized by MoveOn.org members and the liberal Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary to protest the possibility that Senate Republicans will use the "nuclear option" to bypass the filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominees.
Democrats in the Senate are blocking several of Bush's nominees, and Republicans do not have the 60 votes necessary to end the filibuster. The nuclear option, which Republicans are referring to as the "constitutional option," will be up for a vote this week.
In the prepared version of his speech, Gore said he was "genuinely dismayed and deeply concerned by the recent actions of some Republican leaders to undermine the rule of law by demanding the Senate be stripped of its right to unlimited debate where the confirmation of judges is concerned."
Gore urged Senate leaders to "halt their efforts to break the Senate's rules."
Senate rules require 60 votes to end a filibuster, but the nuclear option would change the rules to require only a majority vote. Changing the rules is not unprecedented. Senate Democrats did it in 1975, when they lowered the number required to end a filibuster from 67 to the current level of 60.
"They are now proposing to cut down a rule that has stood for more than two centuries as a protection for unlimited debate," Gore said.
"The Senate has confirmed 205 or over 95 percent of President Bush's nominees," Gore said. "Democrats have held up only 10 nominees, less than 5 percent. Compare that with the 60 Clinton nominees who were blocked by Republican obstruction between 1995 and 2000."
Tony Perkins, director of the conservative Family Research Council, said in a statement "everyone has a right to express a point of view, but these men and women waiting on confirmation, several of them for years, have the right to be told if they are going to be hired or not."
The Family Research Council on Sunday produced a video program on the judicial filibuster issue and distributed it to churches around the nation. The group claims the video - which features congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - reached 61 million households.
"A small minority of Senators do not even want to give these nominees the opportunity to receive the vote they are entitled to," Perkins said. "It is time to give these nominees an up or down vote."
In his speech, Gore accused Republican leaders of attempting a "power grab, pure and simple" and criticized them for other recent attacks on the judiciary. He specifically mentioned House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's remarks about judges who refused to halt the death of Terri Schiavo.
"The time will come for the men responsible for this to pay for their behavior," DeLay said. DeLay later apologized for the remark, saying his words had been chosen poorly.
Gore said the recent attacks on the judiciary from Republicans are being backed by "both right-wing religious extremists and exceptionally greedy economic special interests. Both groups are seeking more and more power for their own separate purposes."
Gore cautioned against allowing religious "zealots" to gain control of the courts. "They should learn that religious faith is a precious freedom and not a tool to divide and conquer," he said.
The Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary is comprised of representatives from more than 20 liberal organizations including Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, People for the American Way, the Feminist Majority and the NAACP.
On its website, People for the American Way describes the coalition as "an alliance of the country's leading national public interest, civil rights, and civil liberties organizations."

Latest posts