Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Dec. 14, 2000 / 17 Kislev, 5761

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

My Court is bigger than your Court -- FEW METHODS of becoming a trusted TV legal "expert" are as guaranteed as being consistently wrong in your legal analysis. Smugness in your wrong predictions is especially valued.

In the week before the real Supreme Court vacated the Florida kangaroo court's original crack-pot interpretation of "seven days" in Florida election law to mean "19 days," there was a lot of both. You would think that one week of wrong predictions about whether the U.S. Supreme Court would even deign to hear the case might have humbled the "experts." Alas, no.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, finally emerging from his shell, explained the Supreme Court's decision to take the case this way: "The Supreme Court saw Jim Baker trashing a state supreme court, saying, in effect, that it's OK to defy the law of the highest court of the state, and I think there's some justices who said, 'We have to protect the judiciary here ... and we have to affirm in the Supreme Court.'"


On Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor," another Harvard law professor, Martha A. Field, explained the "main principle" -- as she put it -- of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling by saying, "(T)he U.S. Supreme Court will not interpret the meaning of state law." The learned professor remarked dismissively, "I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court has a lot to say about this."

So there you have it. Except -- oops -- "Vacated!"

Professor Field was not only completely wrong, but also rather snippy about anyone having the audacity to disagree with her uniformly incorrect statements of the law. She scoffed at the little people in the Florida Legislature who seemed to believe they have some role in determining the manner in which presidential electors are chosen -- "insofar as (the Florida Legislature is) suggesting that their decision would trump a decision of the Florida Supreme Court, they're pretty far out of line."

In point of fact, what the U.S. Supreme Court found "pretty far out of line" was the Florida Supreme Court's delusion (shared by professor Field) that it could trump the Florida Legislature in determining the manner in which presidential electors are appointed. So out of line that it vacated the ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida (SCOFLA).

Students at Harvard Law School intent on learning the law, as opposed to the political belief system of the Democratic Party, would be well advised to take some sort of legal correspondence course.

And not just Harvard. Nat Stern, a law professor at Florida State University, was quoted in the St. Petersburg Times saying the case was simple -- "a fairly ordinary matter" -- and that Bush would lose since the SCOFLA was just doing its job.

Constitutional law professor Martin Redish of Northwestern University said, "I'd be flabbergasted if the Supreme Court actually accepted the Bush argument."

In an article for American Lawyer Media, Vikram David Amar, constitutional law professor at Hastings College, referred to the "creative -- and dare I say extraordinary" -- argument of the Bush lawyers that the SCOFLA had changed the law by "interpreting" seven days to mean "19 days."

A unanimous U.S Supreme Court didn't find the argument all that "creative." It noted rather blandly that "a legislative wish to take advantage of the 'safe harbor' (by enforcing a seven-day deadline) would counsel against any construction of the Election Code that Congress might deem to be a change in the law."

Blowhard liberal law professors can never stick to just being wrong. They are compelled by some invisible force to be both wrong and arrogant. Law professorships finally allow women a chance to say vicious things without being hit.

Law professor Lis Wiehl of the University of Washington adopted the unusually insane Alan Dershowitz theory of the Supreme Court taking the case to express its deep and profound respect for the SCOFLA. Professor Wiehl said: "And I think that's why the Supreme Court decided to take this, is not because they thought there was something wrong with the decision, but that they're going to uphold the (Florida) Supreme Court decision."

Professor Wiehl was absolutely indignant with fellow panelist Joe DiGenova on "Rivera Live" for questioning the great and inscrutable wisdom of the SCOFLA. "When he -- when he talked about the Florida court's actions being questionable, I'm -- I'm so tired of that."

The tired professor Wiehl exasperatedly continued: "If you look at the Florida Supreme Court opinion, what you'll see is that they took two conflicting statutes and they did what courts all over the country do every day. They interpreted two statutes, and they chose to go with the statute that was the more recent statute and the one that is more particularized. That is just common, everyday, judicial interpretation."


JWR contributor Ann Coulter is the author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton. You may visit the Ann Coulter Fan Club by clicking here.


12/11/00: HANG IN THERE, AL!
12/07/00: National Lampoon's Florida Supreme Court Vacation
12/04/00: It's past time for GOPers to quit being good at losing
11/30/00: Things only a Dem will say with a straight face
11/27/00: Certify the electors, then the judges
11/23/00: Kangaroo coup
11/20/00: This is what the Electoral College is supposed to prevent
11/16/00: The liar next time
11/09/00: JUST GO!
11/06/00: Hail Mary past
11/02/00: As the nose grows: The scripture according to Gore
10/30/00: Clinton sure can pick 'em
10/26/00: Gore's 'Nam flashbacks
10/23/00: Courting George Orwell
10/20/00: The three faces of Al
10/17/00: Must Christian conservatives be fascists?
10/13/00: Oil good; Dems bad
10/10/00: Al Gore: Serial fibber
10/06/00: Sigh of the crook
10/03/00: So who's the 'dumb guy' now?
09/29/00: Don't do drug legalization
09/26/00: I'd burn down my neighbor's house
09/22/00: Democrats worship the money shot
09/19/00: Other film footage we'd like to see
09/15/00: Bush can name the **^%*
09/12/00: The Supreme Court ratchet
09/08/00: Our mistake -- keep polluting
09/05/00: Bubba protects and serves
09/01/00: AlGore's 'going out of business!' tax plan
08/29/00: Bush's compassionate conservatism
08/25/00: Space alien tells funny jokes in bathtub
08/22/00: Dems view world only in black and white, not in color
08/18/00: Another Damascus Road conversion
08/15/00: The viagra cotillion
08/11/00: The hand-wringing Hamlet from Hartford
08/07/00: The Democratic party's white face
08/04/00: Hillary's potty mouth
08/01/00: The hole in the story
07/28/00: Cheney's detractors can't get their story straight
07/25/00: AlGore: Elmer Blandry
07/21/00: The tyranny of non-objectivity
07/18/00: The state's religion
07/14/00: Reform it back
07/11/00: Keating for veep
07/07/00: Gore invented 'Clueless'
07/04/00: The stupidity litmus test
06/30/00: O.J. was 'proved innocent' too
06/27/00: The last guys 'proved innocent'
06/23/00: Serious Republican candidates don't get serious press
06/19/00: They weren't overzealous this time
06/16/00: Evolution of the strumpet
06/13/00: Actual journalistic malpractice
06/09/00: I did not have sexual
relations with that ... man!
06/06/00: IRS turns Bubba's screw
05/30/00: Too corrupt to be an Arkansas lawyer
05/26/00: Choose liberalism
05/24/00: Violence against coherence
05/22/00: Developmentally disabled Republicans
05/16/00: For womb the bell tolls
05/12/00: Asylum from Georgetown
05/10/00: The truth is out there, even for the clueless
05/08/00: Barbie is a liberal Democrat
05/02/00: Moving the goalpost
04/28/00: The bastardization of justice
04/25/00: How Monica Lewinsky saved the constitution
04/24/00: It's sunny today, so we need gun control
04/19/00: No shadow of a doubt -- liberal women are worthless
04/14/00: It takes a Communist dictator to raise a child
04/11/00: The verdict is in on Hillary
04/07/00: Vast Concoctions III
04/04/00: 'Horrifying' free speech in New York
03/31/00: Check-Off Box For Pimp Suits
03/28/00: All the news that fits -- we print!
03/24/00: Net losses all around
03/20/00: To protect, serve --- and be spat on
03/16/00: Thank Heaven for the consigliere
03/13/00: Vast concoctions II
03/09/00: The bluebloods voted against you
03/07/00: The Tower of Babble
03/03/00: Vast concoction
03/02/00: Hillary's sartorial lies
02/28/00: You have to break a few eggs to make a joke
02/22/00: I've seen enough killing to support abortion
02/18/00: A liberal lynching
02/15/00: McCain and the flag
02/11/00: The Shakedown Express
02/08/00: To mock a mockingbird
02/05/00: Summing up Campaign 2000: 'Oh, puh-leeze!'
02/01/00: A Confederacy of Dunces
01/28/00: Dollar Bill's racist smear
01/24/00: How high is your freedom quotient?
01/21/00: Numismadness
01/18/00: How dare you attack my wife!
01/14/00: The Gore Buggernaut
01/10/00: The paradox of discrimination law

© 2000, UPS