Ann Coulter for the Court?

Via Instapundit, I have learned that someone has made the following inane suggestion: Nominate Ann Coulter to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court!

Bush should nominate Ann Coulter. She is constitutional scholar with a J.D. from a respectable law school. That's more than most of our Justices have had, historically.

I'm serious.

Either they confirm her, or they raise hell. Assuming they raise hell enough to block the nomination, anyone else Bush puts up as a replacement looks moderate by comparison.

A "constitutional scholar," eh? Here's a sample of her brilliant reasoning, in case anyone needs a refresher:

I don't want to hear any jabberwocky from the Court TV amateurs about "the establishment of religion." ... The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion -- meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion. [bold added]

While it might be amusing to read terms like "jabberwocky" in her opinions, I think that selectively ignoring inconvenient parts of the Constitution (let alone its purpose) as she did here should disqualify her from serious consideration. Still, the approving comments on this post frighteningly reveal either a general ignorance of or acquiescence to Coulter's views on the separation of church and state on the part of many conservatives.

I read Coulter off and on. I'm sure there's plenty more of this bilge for the press to pump back up from the depths should such an idea be entertained seriously. Come to think of this, I almost want this to happen.

Of course, there would be two silver linings -- one facetious -- to Coulter being on the Supreme Court. First, the facetious one: She'd have to shut her trap should a President decide to ignore a ruling on which she joined the majority. Again, from Coulter's own mouth, as quoted by TIA Daily:

[The Schiavo] case has revealed the profoundly totalitarian impulses of the religious right.

The latest is a scandalous column from shrill conservative polemicist Ann Coulter ... [in which she] approvingly quotes this declaration of lawlessness from one of America's worst presidents:

"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."

I guess that would get her Hillary's vote. (I said this while rolling my eyes.)

The more serious silver lining: Her views would end up out in the open and the resulting public disdain for them would be too great for even the most -- er -- devout social conservatives to miss. Perhaps such a move would provide exactly the evidence needed (not that it isn't already available) that Bush did not win his mandate on "moral values," but on the war. Come to think of it, this could backfire to become a great body blow to the religious right as its actual size as a political constituency is revealed. (A Seinfeld episode on "shrinkage" comes to mind....) Then secular Republicans would begin to distance themselves from Christian conservatives and even the Democrats would be leery of touching them with a ten-foot pole.

But in today's intellectual climate, that might be overly optimistic.

I'd favor this move were it not for the Democrats' amazing ability to top the Republicans no matter how foolish they look. I guess I have to hope that Bush would pragmatically rule Coulter out as too "polarizing" a figure....

-- CAV