Don't Get Me Wrong, But . . .
Last week, I happened across Ann Coulter's collumn in our local newspaper. Now, I'm not an avid Ann Coulter fan. I have read her article a couple of times before and usually I agree with what she has to say. I find her to be intelligent and usually she presents a good argument, but I don't rush to find out what she has to say on things. I just occasionally run across her and find her interesting.
However, I did not agree with her line of thinking this time at all. Her topic for this particular article was the nomination of John Roberts to the supreme court. I already knew that she was not happy over the President's choice, so I read the article to find out why. Essentially, what Coulter said was that Roberts is not a bold enough choice. Evidently, she wanted someone more controversial, more extreme, and she feels that the President is playing it safe. I'm kind of disappointed to have to say it, but I think Coulter wanted the Democrats to fight and to lose big. It's kind of sad because essentially, that kind of thinking is just hatred. But what really, rubbed me wrong was in the first paragraph of her article.
She says: "After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male."
Now, wait a minute. Just because he chose a white male, doesn't mean he "pretended" to consider anybody. I'm sure that there were a lot of names on the list, but Roberts is the one picked. Are we supposed to be mad that he isn't a minority? or at least female? I'm sorry but I'm so tired of this way of thinking.
I am a white, conservative, Christian. By virtue of these facts, I am a member of the majority of citizens of the United States. I think that my government should represent me. I do not think that my race or beliefs should simply be background to those of other races or beliefs. I am not out to stop anyone from enjoying the freedoms we have as Americans, no matter what race or creed. I have nothing against anyone of another race. I have nothing against anyone of another faith. I can tolerate those I don't agree with. However, democracy means that the majority rules and like it or not, the majority is white and Christian. Furthermore, it should not offend anyone that I am a white, conservative, Christian. No one should hate me for it, in the same way that I am not supposed to hate someone else for their race or creed. No one should prevent me from accomplishing my potential simply because of these facts. Essentially, racism works both ways.
If the President considered Roberts as a candidate, found him to be qualified, and did not nominate him just because he is white, how would that be fair? If the President feels that John Roberts is our man, then whether he's a white male, or a Peruvian hermaphrodite doesn't make one lick of difference. Can he do the job and do it (pardon the pun) justice? From all appearances, it seems so. I think Roberts is fairly solid nominee. There's been a lot of talk about his beliefs on abortion (another post, another day), but otherwise, nothing really to complain about with this one. How nice is that? We were all gearing up for a big fight and really there's nothing to fight over.
And as far as Roberts not being extreme enough, maybe being a judge shouldn't be about being extreme. It should be about being objective. The job should require someone who is able to disconnect personal feelings and interpret the law from an objective point of view. If we insist that this nominee be extremely right-wing, aren't we also insisting that they legislate from the bench and push their own agenda?
If we really want the Supreme Court to work the way it was designed to, what side of the fence a judge is on doesn't make a difference. If a judge bows to one interest group or one particular creed in their judgments, they are not being fair judges. I, for one, don't want to go before a judge who is going to rule against me just because I am conservative. By the same token, liberals should not have to fear a conservative judge. At the end of the day, the law is the law--it leans neither to the left or the right.
posted by Daffy76 @ 6:40 AM
3 Comments:
Weeeelllll, I am a conservative. And even if I won't admit it, I secretly wish that whatever Justice is confirmed to the SCOTUS would legislate from the bench, as long as he legislates my way. Aye, there's the rub. If any judge legislates from the bench, it opens the door to the proverbial slippery slope, and then all bets are off. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The purpose of all these metaphors is to accentuate the fact that judges have to be impartial, whether we like it or not.
Personally, I didn't get what you did from Ann Coulters remarks, I think she was just saying that she has reservations due to the fact that Roberts is such an unknown entity. We do not know if he would be an activist judge or not, whether he would legislate in favor of the conservative view or the liberal. These judges are appointed for life, and it is imperative, in her view that we don't appoint a judge that will be an activist judge, and she is just sayiong that we don't know. I personally think that President Bush has most likely satisfied himself that Roberts is the best man for the job, from interviewing hum. Or does anyone think that Bush hasn't talked with Judge Roberts at all? At any rate, I think Bush is smart enough to have made the right decision and Ann doesn't have anything to worry about.
Ann is saying that we don't know, but we wouldn't know about any nominee at this stage. With anyone picked, we would have a stage of investigating just who they are and what they are about, no matter how vocal they may have been in the past. But you're right, the President has picked Roberts because he feels he is right for the job. The task at hand is the confirmation process, in which Ms. Coulter should have a little more faith. It may just be the way the she expresses herself, but I couldn't help feeling while I read her article that somehow Roberts had stood Ann Coulter up for the prom or something. I'm just not sure why she distrusts this pick so much at this stage of the game. My personal opinion was that she had someone entirely different in mind.
I don't follow Ann Coulter all that much; and I admit I didn't bother to read her actual article. But your description of how Ann sounds like Roberts stood her up at the prom or something, just sounds so like Ann Coulter. I wouldn't be too concerned over it. That's just Ann's style. She's always a bit sharp-edged and sarcastically biting. Political disagreements within parties, like this, isn't all bad. I'd say within certain bounds, it's very healthy. Kind of like the way we occasionally keep hoping Republicans and Democrats can disagree without resorting to hate-filled, inflammatory rhetoric and work toward building a better America, rather than ripping it apart. I suppose that's a pipe-dream though, given how passionate both sides are on the issues at hand.
Post a Comment
<< Home