I know she just makes the leftirs shriek and foam at the mouth, but I just adore Ann Coulter. This piece is actually about Arlen Spector, but it touches on every major theme of the culture battle and is dead on. After supporting Thomas, Specter turned around and started bellyaching that Thomas was a "disappointment" – presumably for Thomas' failure to ferret out any more "new" constitutional rights such as gay marriage or taxpayer-subsidized penis augmentation. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38157
Ann Coulter is one of my favorites, too - she gets under the liberals' skin and they hurl invective at her that, as Ann notes, they wouldn't think of hurling at Al Qaeda. This is a mark of great success. However, she illustrates a big reason why I refuse to become very attached to the GOP and Republicans like dubya - do you imagine that his nomination of a person to the supreme court would be any better than Souter? Or that he would fight the ACLU over a real conservative nomination? Yeah, maybe he won't nominate the head of the ACLU like Ginsburg, but he would probably nominate a dime-store imitation. With guys like Spector on his team, how could he do any different? Reagan had his own problems, with Bob Dole leading the senate. The path of least resistance is well trodden these days.
While I also enjoy watching the shrill hate-fest that Coulter engenders from the People's Republic of the BigSoccer Politics Board, saying there's a Lib majority on the SC is a little silly. Were that the case, President Gore would be still be apologizing to the Arab world after 9/11. Some of the things she said I agree with (Specter playing into the political hands of Libs on the Bork issue, for example) others she's way out. Bill's own quote is nothing but her putting words in Specter's mouth. It's possbile to think of Thomas' shortcomings as giving raving Libs ammunition, and not be a gay, tree-hugging, anti-war protester. As for the connection of the Texas Butt-Love decision being the birth (so to speak) of the "Let My Two Mommies get Married" movement, wrong-o. I though only a Lib couldn't notice the difference between laws preventing an act (the in-the-grand-scheme-benign private rosebud abuse) and laws recognizing a status that entails rights and privledges (the silly Adam sand Steve nuptuals). This is why I'm not her biggest fan, in spite of her ability to rile hippies.
*sigh* So the US Supreme Court, beginning with Earl Warren and continuing for 50 years, comes down on the liberal side of virtually every decision: voting rights, school busing, abortion, Miranda, Gay marriage, on and on and on. Because the American public will never go along with the liberal agenda, the courts have been the place where the entire left wing agenda has been enacted. But one day, on one issue, they didn't side with Al Gore and WHOA NELLY!!! What a bunch of Far-Right Nazis! This argument of the left - that Gore vs. Florida was decided the way it was simply because they wanted George Bush as President is the WHOLE, ENTIRE problem with the Dems right now. They are so convinced that the decision was political that they ignore the fact that the SC has consistently been the greatest agent of the leftist agenda in the US. Here's the deal: Gore v Florida decided one question, and one question only: Does a State Supreme Court (in this case Florida) have a constitutional right to overturn the electoral rules set down by the respective state legislatures. Period. Not who won the state. Not who they wanted to be President. And since the US Constitution, SPECIFICALLY STATES that STATE LEGISLATURES have sole provenance to decide how and by what means that states' electoral votes are awarded, the SC ruled, rightly, that the FLorida Supreme Court had no right to change the rules, regardless of how badly they wanted Al Gore to win. (Because the facts were simple: the electoral rules previously established by the Florida Legislature said that the Florida Secretary of State MUST certify the election results within seven days of the conclusion of voting. Clear. Unambiguous. No question. But Al Gore didn't like the results from Palm Beach COunty, and his lawyers asked the S of S for more time. She replied that the law was clear, she had no choice. So, adise from of course slandering and libeling her as a Nazi, they went to the Florida SUpreme Court, who, despite the fact that it was OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional, said "Sure, take all the time you want. Let us know when you get a result you want, Al" So Bush's lawyers appealed to the US Supreme Court. Now these guys had two choices: they could a) ignore the clear and unambiguous rules contained in the US COnstitution (which is what the Dems wanted them to do) OR b) they could rule according to that pesky old thing called THE LAW and say that the COnstitution means what it says and that seven days actually means seven days and that the Florida SUpreme Court cannot legally interfere. In other words, they decided the case based on THE GODDAM LAW, and not what the left wanted.) The problem was not that they wanted George Bush to be President. The PROBLEM was that Al Gore had no case, knew he had no case, and wanted them to ignore that fact and make him President. They refused.
While your analysis of Gore v Florida is spot on, the Liberal (big L, mind you) milestone cases you mention happened before most of this court was on the bench in the first place. Other than gay marriage. When did the SC deal with gay marriage? As I mentioned before, they struck down the South's pervert laws sure, but that doesn't make them either pro-anal sex or a Liberal court. Had Clinton sneak in a few more justices, don't you think we'd be watching President Internet struggle for re-election right now? Now THAT would be a Liberal Court.
Unfortunately, Bills analysis is not "spot on" http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html Re-read the opinion. Please. The 7 day deadline was an issue, however it was not the ultimate issue used by the Court to overturn the FL Sup. Ct. The deadline had been pushed back on previous occasions. The applicable law, Fla. Stat. § 102.168, allowed Gore to demand a manual recount. The outcome was substantially close enough and he sought to apply THE GODDAM LAW. The central question of the case, as stated by the Court was NOT "Does a State Supreme Court have a constitutional right to overturn the electoral rules set down by the respective state legislatures." This was an Equal Protection Case, pure and simple. The Court held that the FL Sup. Ct. violated the Equal Protection clause because the it failed to identify and require standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots. In other words, the US Sup. Ct. overruled the FL Sup. Ct. because it failed to promulgate specific criteria for hanging chads and the like. What was absurd about this case was that the Majority here had hardly ever used the Equal Protection Clause to strike down anything. Rehnquist in fact has even said the EP clause does not apply to Racial Civil Right. Granted the Dissent, who usually was willing to invoke the EP clause at the drop of a hat, held the clause didn't apply in this situation. The outcome, on whatever grounds, was correct. However, to believe that politics did not play a part in the Jusitice's decisions is patently naive. Gotta Run. Enjojy.