Response to Today's Coulter-Rant

I don't want to even write this post, but I was quite appalled at Ann Coulter's latest shrill diatribe, so I'm going to take a few moments and respond to just a couple of the most outrageous statements.

Coulter: "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!"

Janice Rogers Brown believes that the Supreme Court should roll the clock back to pre-1937 jurisprudence, when courts invalidated laws protecting workers on the grounds that the rights of businesses were infringed upon. This is not only an extreme position, this is an activist position, something that conservatives say constantly that they cannot stand. Rogers Brown has called the New Deal "the triumph of our socialist revolution," and has often opposed anti-discrimination laws and just about every environmental regulation she's been charged with adjudicating. Additionally, I agree with Senator Leahy's assessment of her suitability for the court to which she's been nominated, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals:

"She is being considered for a position on the premier administrative law court in the nation -- a court that is responsible for overseeing the actions of federal agencies that are responsible for worker protections, environmental protections, consumer safeguards, and civil rights protections. I am concerned about her ability to be a fair arbitrator on this court. Justice Brown has made no secret of her disdain for government. She has said, '(w)here government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies.' How can someone who believes it is not the 'job of government to take care of' the American people be entrusted to make fair and neutral decisions when faced with the responsibility of interpreting the powers of the federal government and the breadth of regulatory statutes?"

This is just one example; one of the seven judges that Bush seems intent on putting on the federal bench. Extreme? I happen to believe it is.

Coulter: "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, and 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."

That's funny. When I took a look at the website of People for the American Way, I almost immediately found this page, "Janice Rogers Brown: In Her Own Words." It doesn't get much more specific than that! Agree or disagree with PFAW, Ms. Coulter - that's fine. But if you're going to make statements, you should at least have something to back them up. Yes it's true, many arguments against Rogers Brown and the other judges have been made using general statements and without enough specifics to justify them, but PFAW's provided those specifics, as have some of the other opponents of the seven disputed judges, including Senator Leahy, whose statements against Rogers Brown and other judges include lengthy quotations from the judges themselves and are filled with specific examples. "Opaque"? Sometimes yes, but not always.

Speaking of opaque. Coulter: "Democrats oppose Janice Rogers Brown because she's black."

That's all. Where's the proof? Where are the specifics? If there is a case to be made that those who oppose Janice Rogers Brown's nomination are racially motivated, I would certainly like to hear it. Coulter provides not a single shred of evidence for this baseless allegation.

Coulter: "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.')."

Sorry Ann, you've got it backwards. May I remind you, it was Senator Reid and the Democrats who offered a compromise that would have defused the nuclear option by offering votes on several of the disputed judges, and Senator Frist who redefined compromise as nothing short of the exact position he started at. The Democrats offered to give a little, and Frist shot them down.

Support or oppose the confirmation of the seven disputed judges. Support or oppose the nuclear option and changing the Senate's rules of operation to push them through. But Ms. Coulter, if you have something to say, please back it up, and please don't reverse the truth. Too many people read what you write and believe it.