DRAG LIBERALS INTO THE LIGHT
by Ann Coulter
April 28, 2005


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 TV, 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."


Cordially,
Ken (NY)

email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

spammers can send mail to

DRAG LIBERALS INTO THE LIGHT
by Ann Coulter