Monthly Archives: September 2020

.@AnnCoulter Lies For 25 Years About #SCOTUS Cases and Nominees!

With the not unexpected passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, provocateur Ann Coulter is again stridently seeking relevance by trying to become the voice for determining her replacement on the high court.

DON’T TRUST ANN COULTER!

Since RBG’s passing, Coulter has gone on several Twitter rants in support of the only person she considers qualified, the 58-year-old Miguel Estrada. Why? They have been BFFs for 25 years and he shares her views on immigration.

Coulter’s rants include incessant attacks upon the character of Amy Coney Barrett – solely because she is a Catholic (although her being female probably also figures into the equation). Coulter falsely claims that Barrett’s Catholic faith would influence her decisions on the death penalty. The American Spectator, a one-time ally of Coulter’s, also rejects Coulter’s absurd claim.

(Coulter has opposed the Catholic faith, often with vigorous vilification, for decades.)[1]

This isn’t Coulter’s first attempt at subverting the Constitution for political purposes.[2]

Elián González

The Elián González case became international political theater during the 2000 presidential race. It rekindled the Cold War in miniature. Coulter fed into that political hysteria by telling lies of her own, lies which fit into her own ideological sensibilities. Those lies included turning a Supreme Court decision on its head, claiming it said the exact opposite of what the Court decided.[3]

The heart and core of Coulter’s case for denying Juan Miguel González custody of his own son rested on Coulter’s decades-long belief that fathers have absolutely no rights or responsibilities to their own children except through marriage.

On talk TV – contrary to what the law actually says – Coulter continually insisted that putative fathers have no rights to their children: “The law used to account for these things by saying the father doesn’t have rights to a child unless he’s married to the mother. That’s how a man can claim his heritage and his claims on a child. … That’s how a father gets the right to children, by being married to the mother.”[4]

Coulter reaffirmed – again and again – that only marriage confers custodial rights: “First of all, the idea that a father has rights to a child by donating sperm; No! A father gains rights to a child by being married to the mother. … He has absolutely no rights to the child! Fathers gain rights to children by marrying the mothers.”[5]

The only problem with Coulter’s claims is that they are false. The law has always upheld the biological rights of fathers, irrespective of whether the child is born out-of-wedlock.

Parental Rights

Coulter’s view of parental rights was her principal argument to separate a son from his father, but that core point of her position, that central concept, was an outright lie! To buttress that lie – which she has consistently expressed for over twenty years – Coulter lied about a Supreme Court ruling which any layman can read and see that it reaches the exact opposite conclusion. Coulter wrote:

“Let’s just consider the initial presumption that a father gets custody of his son. The law is indeed clear, at least to this extent: That ‘law’ refers only to legitimate children. … The Supreme Court last weighed in on the legal rights of unwed fathers in 1989 when it cut off all of the father’s rights to his child, including visitation.”[6]

In her essay, Coulter literally reversed the decision of the Court, falsely claiming it denied those custodial rights. Contrary to Coulter’s fiery opinion, the law says otherwise. The Supreme Court, in five cases, upheld the principle of paternity rights for putative fathers. Those cases were all cited in the Supreme Court case cited by Coulter.

In a rather remarkable display of truth twisting, Coulter took this Supreme Court case which affirms the custody rights of natural fathers and declared it the definitive denial of those rights![7]

The father in Coulter’s cited case was not denied parental rights due to illegitimacy but because his claim of fatherhood was filed after the filing deadline. That father had failed to assert his rights within two years of his daughter’s birth. Illegitimacy was never the issue. The Supreme Court has consistently confirmed custodial rights of natural fathers, both in principle and in practice. So, the case Coulter cited says the exact opposite of what Coulter claimed. (This would become a pattern for Coulter.)

“Bald assertions about the very question under dispute,” Coulter once wrote, “is an odd method of argument,”[8] yet that is precisely what Coulter did (and continues to do). According to Coulter, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; everyone is not entitled to his own facts.”[9] Apparently Coulter is not above making up her own “facts.”

Strangely (or not, for Ann), Coulter later asserted, “Apparently that’s the way constitutional analysis goes these days. You determine, we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now: Whatever you want the Constitution to say, that’s what it says, miraculously. Well, that has never been me!”[10]

Sorry, Ann, but you are the allegedly “conservative”[11] Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Birther Coulter Births More Lies

In 2015, Ann Coulter led the charge of those seeking to crush a Cruz candidacy with a lie!

When she thought she could foist Romney on us again in 2016,[12] Coulter began to attack Cruz on his citizenship. With Cruz posing a serious threat to Trump, her new-found soul-mate,[13] Coulter shifted into high gear, stridently claiming Cruz was ineligible to be president.[14]

Erstwhile anti-birther Coulter became the premiere birther attacking Ted Cruz. Why? She wanted to scuttle Cruz’s presidential ambitions and stop his burgeoning support before her own Savior, Trump, lost the nomination.

It’s Really Not About Ted, But All About Ann

Seemingly on emotional steroids, Coulter turned her attack dog persona on Trump’s most formidable Republican foe, all the while professing an “Ah, shucks, I don’t want to do this, but it’s the right thing to do” attitude even has she stuck a shiv in Ted’s side.

Coulter dodged claims that she changed position on Cruz’s eligibility solely to support Trump by asserting she took her current position prior to Trump’s candidacy. That is a red herring.

Coulter wrote: “I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy.”[15] Coulter claimed, “It’s not that I want him not to be a Natural Born Citizen.”[16] Except, Coulter’s later claim is patently false and demonstrably untrue.

In reality, Coulter was obsessed with recruiting Romney for president, so much so that her close friend, Sean Hannity, was aghast at the depth of her obsession. Cruz was becoming an impediment to Coulter’s plans for Romney.

Coulter first sought to disqualify Cruz as a presidential contender to force her idol, Mitt Romney, to run again[17] in 2016. At that time, she wanted Romney – and only Romney![18]

Later, she wanted Trump – and only Trump![19]

Later still, Coulter boasted that she still wanted a Trump-Romney ticket: “In fact, my ideal ticket is Trump-Romney. That’s what I’m really hoping for. That’s the dynamite combo.”[20]

Bob Woodward said, “History is character; behavior is character.”[21] Coulter’s history, and her behavior these past two decades, proves Coulter’s own lack of character.[22] Coulter lied about the Constitution and Supreme Court cases during the 2000 election[23] and she did the same thing during the 2016 election cycle.

Nevertheless, Coulter hypocritically attacked those who correctly interpret the Constitution, lamenting, “It’s kind of annoying me that we are all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now and people interpret the Constitution based on what they want the Constitution to say, not what it does say.”[24]

1608 or 1790; Blood or Soil?

Coulter even emulates Justice Ginsburg, who infamously used contorted and convoluted reasoning to achieve her desired partisan objectives. Andrea Widburg notes, “The worst thing about her decisions, though, was how she misused case authority to create new principles out of whole cloth.  Nothing shows that more than in her determination to bypass our American Constitution and law and look to foreign constitutions, laws, and customs.” Coulter echoes Ginsburg’s approach.

According to Coulter, “In the U.S., also in Great Britain and in France, citizenship is determined by soil. … Congress can write laws for naturalization. That is also in the Constitution. But if Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not natural born. … It is determined by a law written by Congress; not by the common law, not by the Constitution. So that is not natural born.”[25]

Except, the law written by Congress (and empowered by the Constitution) establishes who is natural born! In 1790, Congress established citizenship by blood.

Coulter asserted: “The phrase ‘natural born’ is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin – a Scot – could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.”[26]

The case which Coulter cited – Calvin’s Case (1608) – has to do with English subjects, not citizens. Americans are not subjects. Our Founders took those portions of English common law with which they agreed and modified or dispensed with those portions which were incongruent with the new American constitutional system that they were creating.

Chief Justice Joseph Story wrote, in an 1829 Supreme Court opinion (emphasis added): “The common law of England is not to be taken, in all respects, to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them its general principles, and claimed it as their birthright; but they brought with them and adopted, only that portion which was applicable to their situation.”

Coulter claimed that a 1608 case in England is the basis for America’s definition of Natural Born Citizen.[27] Consequently, Coulter asserted that the 1790 law enacted by Congress is irrelevant. Does Coulter seriously believe that a 1790 American law enacted by the Founders is nullified by English case law from 1608? Really?

According to the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities (emphasis added), “In Britain, even before Calvin’s Case, various acts and proclamations provided that a child born out of the territory of England could also be a natural-born subject, as long as the child’s parents owed allegiance to the sovereign of England. This is an example of the jus sanguinis [blood] operating alongside the jus soli [soil]. In the history of both Britain and the United States, the jus sanguinis has always been established by statute, never by judge-made law.

The 1790 statute by Congress, which Coulter dismissed as “irrelevant,” precisely establishes the principle of right of blood which Coulter denies![28]

The Congressional Research Service published its findings on this issue (emphasis added):

“From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term ‘natural born’ in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).”

Cleverly, Coulter very subtly suggested that those defending citizenship by blood are nascent Nazis, saying (emphasis added), “The two methods are soil or blood. Curiously, in Germany, it’s, it’s blood.”[29]

Coulter Lied About Yet ANOTHER Supreme Court Case

Coulter wrote: “As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: ‘It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship.’”[30]

Coulter used this case to prove her contention that Cruz is ineligible, when, in fact, it proves the opposite!

As noted in ROGERS v. BELLEI, (1971) (emphasis added):

“Section 301 (a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1401 (a), defines those persons who ‘shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.’ Paragraph (7) of 301 (a) includes in that definition a person born abroad ‘of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States’ who has met specified conditions of residence in this country.”

The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship at birth but to take it away upon the person’s failure to comply with a post-age-14 and pre-age-28 residential requirement. It is this deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here.”

“The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution’s Art. I, 8, cl. 4, to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization’ by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated, ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.’” [Subsequent statutes extended it to either a citizen mother or citizen father.]

Ted Cruz Is Eligible!

Gary DeMar is perhaps the foremost expert on America’s Founders. DeMar offered a history of originalist thought on Natural Born Citizen and reached this stunning conclusion: “Ted Cruz [is] more of an American than some of the drafters of the Constitution.”

A chagrined Coulter lashed out: “Imagine what nightmare a Cruz presidency would be! This is now the second time Cruz has forced me to research something his supporters were lying about – the last time was on Cruz’s alleged eligibility to be president, despite being born in Canada. (He’s not a ‘natural born citizen,’ but I enjoyed reading all those Supreme Court opinions!)”[31]

Sarah P. Condor-Fisher at Politichicks disagreed: “the People of the United States have the power to recognize a ‘naturalized’ citizen as ‘natural-born’ at any time – by a Congressional declaration of ‘eligibility’ as to the particular person (Art.1, Sec.5), by means of legal interpretation from the Supreme Court – or, by a Constitutional Amendment.”

But for Coulter, this is not just political, it is personal. Seeing herself as the embodiment and perfect representative of America – the “Settler” – she could not brook an interloper gaining the presidency. Moreover, she wanted to be in control of the process and the outcome of the election.

Coulter Defames Supreme Court Nominees

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, conservatives searched for a constitutionalist to replace him. Thomas Hardiman and Raymond Kethledge were floated as a possible replacement. Coulter chose to defame them in order to get her preferred nominee elevated to the highest court in the land.

Again, immigration was the crucial factor in her decision making. Either she doesn’t understand the law as well as she thinks or would have us believe) she does, or she deliberately defamed him (which has been a pattern of behavior she has exhibited for some 25 years).

Raymond Kethledge

Coulter defamed Raymond Kethledge in a column and a series of tweets.

Coulter concluded that Kethledge is an open borders zealot and – without evidence of any kind – that he would betray his oath of office by deliberately misjudging cases to that end.

(Why? Coulter would surely subvert the law, if given the chance, to pursue her own agenda. She has numerous times in the past.)

Coulter presumes Kethledge lacks integrity and would not keep his oath of office because she wouldn’t.

Coulter tweeted:

  • Finding that grand-theft auto is not a theft (AS LONG AS THE CRIMINAL IMMIGRANT GETS TO STAY!) kind of shoots down to the claim that Kethledge is a constitutional textualist.
  • And unlike most ppl taking sides on S. Ct nominees I don’t know any of them personally.* But I can read! *Except Kethledge, which is how I know he’s opposite of Trump on immigration.
  • FALSE! I was a lonely voice in the woods warning you about Judge Roberts. Also opposed Miers — while being attacked for it on Fox News. Now, I’m telling you Kavanaugh is stellar.
  • No commitment to originalism or religious liberty or even overturning Roe will mean a hill of beans in a country that becomes Mexico because of open-borders zealots like Kethledge. See California.
  • That’s a direct quote from the TEXT of the law Kethledge was applying, 8 U.S.C. 1101 – “Definitions”
  • Can anybody figure out what this “text” means? “The term ‘aggravated felony’ means— (G) a theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment at 5 least one year”

Matthew Downer responded to Coulter:

Kethledge applied the law CORRECTLY.

The definition: “for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.”

“He was sentenced to a three-year SUSPENDED sentence.”

He “served LESS THAN ONE YEAR in the county jail.”

Thomas Hardiman

Coulter also defamed Thomas Hardiman, again, with the exact same purpose – to get her preferred judge nominated.

As reported by Law and Crime, Coulter attacked “Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman, and accused him of being “subsidized” by liberal philanthropist George Soros.”

Coulter tweeted:

As noted by Law and Crime: “What the heck is up with that? Well, it’s not entirely accurate.” (See article linked above for more details.)

Leonard Leo, Coulter’s close friend and President of the Federalist Society, said (emphasis added), “Tom Hardiman … is very much in the mold of Justice Scalia, well-schooled on the doctrines of originalism and textualism, and he is very experienced.”

Ann Coulter’s #Resistance Movement

Coulter was part of the #Resistance long before it came into being. Just ask Sen. Spencer Abraham, whose policies she subverted while she was working for him on the Senate Judiciary staff in 1995-1996. Coulter boasted of creating plans and giving information to her colleagues to thwart Abraham’s immigration agenda.

Coulter is ever ready to put her thumb on the scales of justice or use a rhetorical fist to achieve her desires. Her end justifies her means.

With every election cycle and every Supreme Court nomination, Coulter becomes #FakeNews.

Over twenty years ago, Coulter said, “I’m perfectly willing to engage in wild speculation and unsubstantiated rumors[32] and her claim is even more true today.

Coulter has become a law unto herself, abandoning principles willy-nilly. She perverts language and subverts the law to undermine the election process, election results, and the will of the people. (See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at Any Age.)
Coulter was Strzok before Strzok became Strzok.

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis of Coulter’s worldview and character flaws which have led her to be so wrong in so many areas in which she regards herself as an expert.

 Endnotes:

[1]              See “First, Jews; Now, Catholics?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-ah.

[2]              See a series of case studies in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory.

[3]              For greater details on the González case and Coulter’s perversion of constitutional law, see “Case Study # 4: In the Name of Elián (González),” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory.

[4]              Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/22/97.

[5]              Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/25/97.

[6]              Ann Coulter, “The bastardization of justice,” 4/26/00.

[7]              Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 410 (1989).

[8]              Ann Coulter, “Miranda Not a ‘Constitutional Straightjacket,’” 12/15/99.

[9]              Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Regnery, 1998, pg. 3.

[10]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.

[11]             See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age.

[12]             See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

[13]             See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[14]             See “Coulter Claims Cruz Ineligible” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9j.

[15]             Ann Coulter, “We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now,” 1/13/16.

[16]             Ann Coulter, Hardball, MSNBC, 1/11/16.

[17]             See “Coulter Stumps for Romney – Again!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4V.

[18]             See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

[19]             See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[20]             Ann Coulter, Hardball, MSNBC, 1/11/16.

[21]             Bob Woodward, Fox News Sunday, FNC, 1/10/16.

[22]             See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age.

[23]             See “Coulter Lies About Supreme Court Case” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bE.

[24]             Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 1/12/16.

[25]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.

[26]             Ann Coulter, “We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now,” 1/13/16.

[27]             Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 1/12/16.

[28]             See Case Study: Natural Born Citizens in Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged at https://bit.ly/2TttHtF.

[29]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.

[30]             Ann Coulter, “We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now,” 1/13/16.

[31]             Ann Coulter, “Ted Cruz: Tracy Flick With a D*CK,” 4/13/16.

[32]             Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 11/9/96.

.@AnnCoulter Joins @TheAtlantic and #LincolnProject to Smear Donald Trump

Fresh off a ten-day Twitter suspension, #TDS-addled Ann Coulter again trashed President Trump, suggesting he has broken his promises regarding the military and ending pointless wars.

Shockingly, Coulter’s assertions feed in to the bogus hit piece against Trump by The Atlantic and suggests she is in league with the Lincoln Project to bring down the Trump presidency.

Anyone with a brain can see that Trump has been the first president in many decades to refrain from starting new wars and ending old ones. Indeed, her churlish criticism of Trump is at odds with Trump’s nomination for a well-earned Nobel Peace Prize.

Nothing satisfies Ann Coulter.

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis of Coulter’s worldview and character flaws which have led her to be so wrong in so many areas in which she regards herself as an expert.[1]

Endnotes:

[1]      See Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged at http://www.coulterwatch.com/joker.pdf.