Ann Coulter Vomits Another Beauty

Ann Couter's latest column is probably no more nauseating or virulent than her past abominations of the keystroke, but March 24's gives us a special look into how dishonest and shallowly educated the right has become on the Schiavo issue. To wit, in her last column, Ann treats us to a double-barreled helping of her wisdom. First:

"Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan — although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them."

Unfortunately, Ann's medical expertise seems to have been glommed directly from the solitary doctor to have dissented during the sum total of all of Terri's trials, Dr. William Hammesfahr. The good Doctor Hammesfahr (who is still lying about a nomination for the Nobel Prize in Physiology) has made the same argument as the one Ann parrots above. The problem lies in whether an MRI or a PET scan are "better" or more reliable than the disappointing CT scans and EEG's that WERE administered on numerous occasions from 1990 - 2002. Ann is implying that they are. Exactly why, Ms. Coulter? Because Sean Hannity's unnamed yet "infamous" brother-in-law, supposedly says so? Or rather, is it just your opinion that indigent Medicaid and Medicare patients should be given unlimited access to (not just 2, but all) of the most expensive diagnostic apparatuses? Can a correct prognosis be finally assured if a "faith based" healer fingers her cranium?

Subsequently (and in obedient lockstep fashion) Ann joins the chorus of right wing bleating about the newest demons in our "culture of life": the judiciary. Nevermind that Judge Greer is a Republican. Nevermind that the Atlanta Federal Court decision carried on the assent of a Bush 41 appointee. Nevermind that Ann owes her entire career to working in the Federal Judiciary. Nevermind that Ann is a lawyer and has never renounced her life's work or licenses. Ann has tightened her hypocrisy chinstrap and jumped onto the "blame the lawyers and judges" bandwagon:

"What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous — literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped — solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God....President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived."

You may be wondering what that particular Supreme Court ruling that Jackson opposed was. So, also, did I. I researched and found a commencement speech by Supreme Court Justice Breyer in 2003 that described this incident. Gee, I wonder what part of Worcester v. Georgia Ann found the most supportive of her argument:

"Now let me mention one characteristic of our society that I hope will not change. Every day in my job I see how this Nation over time has gradually made real the Constitution's promise of a rule of law. In 1832 the Cherokee Indian tribe lived on land guaranteed them by treaty. They found gold on that land. Georgia tried to seize the land. The Cherokees sued. And eventually the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, held in favor of the Cherokees. Georgia then refused to obey the Court. President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." And Jackson sent troops to evict the Cherokees, who traveled the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, thousands dying along the way."

Yes, somehow the republic DID survive this incident. Shame on you, Ann. That is, if perfect diabolical arrogance is capable of shame.