Two observations about retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens are about to become established fact by sheer repetition. The first -- that Stevens is the last Protestant on the court -- is not true in any meaningful sense. The second -- that Stevens didnt move left the court moved right -- is madness.
While its true that there are no other Protestants on the court -- now composed of six Catholics and two Jews making the Supreme Court only slightly less diverse than cable news hosts 75 percent of whom are Catholic or Jewish but also include a Scientologist a Mormon and a gay -- its difficult to believe Stevens is any kind of Protestant.
Stevens is more like a pre-road to Damascus Saul. Or maybe the late Justice William Brennan.
It has been said that when asked during his confirmation hearings if he would follow his Catholicism or the Constitution Brennan should have answered: Neither. (Only one senator voted against that cheap leprechaun. Guess who!... Thats right: Joe McCarthy.)
Stevens overall career-average may be less ridiculous than Brennans but in one respect Stevens was a standout: He was the most fanatically anti-religious justice in modern times.
In the 1989 abortion case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services for example Stevens argued that a state law that defined life as beginning at conception violated the First Amendment by -- yes establishing a religion. The abortion law he said gave a theological answer to the question of when life begins. (Youve all heard of the First Church of When Life Begins United havent you?)
Fortunately Stevens didnt read far enough to see that the Bible also condemns murder generally or he might have voted to strike down all laws against murder too.
In the 2002 school voucher case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Stevens argued that an Ohio program giving poor parents tuition aid to send their children to schools of their choosing also violated the establishment clause. Stevens admitted that the public school system in question was in crisis and also that the new schools were freely chosen by the parents.
Still he said because the program did not forbid parents from using the tuition payments at religious schools the state was using public funds to pay for the indoctrination of thousands of grammar school children in particular religious faiths. That money should have been used to indoctrinate children in subjects such as animal rights Gaia theory anti-Americanism and fisting etiquette!
Speaking as a Protestant and not a Protestant were happy to see Stevens leave the court.
Stevens claim that he hasnt moved left the court has moved right if stated during a mental competence hearing would have earned him a straitjacket and a handful of Thorazine.
But because Stevens self-characterization comports with the legal lefts position that the Supreme Courts failure to enact the entire platform of the Green Party constitutes conservative judicial activism it has been reverently repeated.
Its true that on a few issues Stevens didnt change. He has long found any religious practice not crushed by the government to be an establishment of religion. Stevens has also never been an enthusiast of tenuous claims to free speech rights voting to uphold city restrictions on strip clubs in 1976 and voting to uphold a law that prohibited the burning of the American flag in 1989.
But on many other issues such as race discrimination Stevens swung so far to the left that his earlier opinions would be unrecognizable as having been written by the same man.
In 1978 Stevens was not only in the majority in University of California Regents v. Bakke but he also wrote the opinion holding that the schools race-based admissions program violated Title VII and ordering the university to admit Bakke.
In another case of government race-based classifications Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980) Stevens ridiculed the idea of race-based remedies being applied to every ethnic group under the sun.
Adopting Justice William Rehnquists view that the specific history of blacks in America makes their claims unique Stevens wrote: Quite obviously the history of discrimination against black citizens in America cannot justify a grant of privileges to Eskimos or Indians. (Remember when you could use terms like Eskimo and Indian without being accused of a hate crime?)
Unlike blacks who were dragged to this country in chains to be sold in slavery Stevens said the Spanish-speaking subclass came voluntarily frequently without invitation and the Indians the Eskimos and the Aleuts had an opportunity to exploit Americas resources before the ancestors of most American citizens arrived.
Now fast-forward to 2003 when the court considered the race-based admissions policy at the University of Michigan. The school automatically awarded 20 points -- one-fifth of the total points needed for admission -- to every minority including not only blacks but also Hispanics Indians Eskimos and Aleuts.
This time affirmative action for Aleuts was just peachy with Stevens who came up with a ludicrous procedural objection to the lawsuit basically concluding that no one ever has standing to sue for race discrimination in college admissions. I guess he figured it was time somebody did something about the University of Michigans long shameful history of discriminating against Aleuts.
Thats quite a change from the Justice Stevens of Fullilove who compared government affirmative action programs to Nazi policies saying if the government is to make a serious effort to define racial classes by criteria that can be administered objectively it must study precedents such as the First Regulation to the Reichs Citizenship Law of Nov. 14 1935 translated in Volume 4 of Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression.
Whatever you think of Stevens newfound admiration for government racial preferences its preposterous to say as Stevens did I really dont think Ive changed all that much.
If liberals will lie about obvious facts from the last few decades such as Stevens dramatic swing to the left how can they be trusted to tell the truth about a 200-year-old Constitution?
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
Two observations about retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens are about to become established fact by sheer repetition. The first -- that Stevens is the last Protestant on the court -- is not true in any meaningful sense. The second -- that Stevens didnt move left the court moved right -- is madness.
While its true that there are no other Protestants on the court -- now composed of six Catholics and two Jews making the Supreme Court only slightly less diverse than cable news hosts 75 percent of whom are Catholic or Jewish but also include a Scientologist a Mormon and a gay -- its difficult to believe Stevens is any kind of Protestant.
Stevens is more like a pre-road to Damascus Saul. Or maybe the late Justice William Brennan.
It has been said that when asked during his confirmation hearings if he would follow his Catholicism or the Constitution Brennan should have answered: Neither. (Only one senator voted against that cheap leprechaun. Guess who!... Thats right: Joe McCarthy.)
Stevens overall career-average may be less ridiculous than Brennans but in one respect Stevens was a standout: He was the most fanatically anti-religious justice in modern times.
In the 1989 abortion case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services for example Stevens argued that a state law that defined life as beginning at conception violated the First Amendment by -- yes establishing a religion. The abortion law he said gave a theological answer to the question of when life begins. (Youve all heard of the First Church of When Life Begins United havent you?)
Fortunately Stevens didnt read far enough to see that the Bible also condemns murder generally or he might have voted to strike down all laws against murder too.
In the 2002 school voucher case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Stevens argued that an Ohio program giving poor parents tuition aid to send their children to schools of their choosing also violated the establishment clause. Stevens admitted that the public school system in question was in crisis and also that the new schools were freely chosen by the parents.
Still he said because the program did not forbid parents from using the tuition payments at religious schools the state was using public funds to pay for the indoctrination of thousands of grammar school children in particular religious faiths. That money should have been used to indoctrinate children in subjects such as animal rights Gaia theory anti-Americanism and fisting etiquette!
Speaking as a Protestant and not a Protestant were happy to see Stevens leave the court.
Stevens claim that he hasnt moved left the court has moved right if stated during a mental competence hearing would have earned him a straitjacket and a handful of Thorazine.
But because Stevens self-characterization comports with the legal lefts position that the Supreme Courts failure to enact the entire platform of the Green Party constitutes conservative judicial activism it has been reverently repeated.
Its true that on a few issues Stevens didnt change. He has long found any religious practice not crushed by the government to be an establishment of religion. Stevens has also never been an enthusiast of tenuous claims to free speech rights voting to uphold city restrictions on strip clubs in 1976 and voting to uphold a law that prohibited the burning of the American flag in 1989.
But on many other issues such as race discrimination Stevens swung so far to the left that his earlier opinions would be unrecognizable as having been written by the same man.
In 1978 Stevens was not only in the majority in University of California Regents v. Bakke but he also wrote the opinion holding that the schools race-based admissions program violated Title VII and ordering the university to admit Bakke.
In another case of government race-based classifications Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980) Stevens ridiculed the idea of race-based remedies being applied to every ethnic group under the sun.
Adopting Justice William Rehnquists view that the specific history of blacks in America makes their claims unique Stevens wrote: Quite obviously the history of discrimination against black citizens in America cannot justify a grant of privileges to Eskimos or Indians. (Remember when you could use terms like Eskimo and Indian without being accused of a hate crime?)
Unlike blacks who were dragged to this country in chains to be sold in slavery Stevens said the Spanish-speaking subclass came voluntarily frequently without invitation and the Indians the Eskimos and the Aleuts had an opportunity to exploit Americas resources before the ancestors of most American citizens arrived.
Now fast-forward to 2003 when the court considered the race-based admissions policy at the University of Michigan. The school automatically awarded 20 points -- one-fifth of the total points needed for admission -- to every minority including not only blacks but also Hispanics Indians Eskimos and Aleuts.
This time affirmative action for Aleuts was just peachy with Stevens who came up with a ludicrous procedural objection to the lawsuit basically concluding that no one ever has standing to sue for race discrimination in college admissions. I guess he figured it was time somebody did something about the University of Michigans long shameful history of discriminating against Aleuts.
Thats quite a change from the Justice Stevens of Fullilove who compared government affirmative action programs to Nazi policies saying if the government is to make a serious effort to define racial classes by criteria that can be administered objectively it must study precedents such as the First Regulation to the Reichs Citizenship Law of Nov. 14 1935 translated in Volume 4 of Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression.
Whatever you think of Stevens newfound admiration for government racial preferences its preposterous to say as Stevens did I really dont think Ive changed all that much.
If liberals will lie about obvious facts from the last few decades such as Stevens dramatic swing to the left how can they be trusted to tell the truth about a 200-year-old Constitution?
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
