« Slow Burn | Main | Diagnose Me! »

March 28, 2005
Coulter's Trail of Tears

Pointing out sickening nutjobbery in the writings of Ann Coulter is like shooting fish in a barrel, but, also like shooting fish in a barrel, it's kind of fun.

Last week, Ann penned a nice column, stretching her wings a little to declare that liberals are bad, bad, bad. She ends by encouraging Florida Governor Jeb Bush to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, and backs up this advise thusly..

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.

Townhall.com

Yes, Ann, you're right, the republic did survive. The Cherokee Nation, though, didn't do quite as well.

The Supreme Court order that Andrew Jackson refused to abide by was one that granted the Cherokee Indians the right to stay on their ancestral land and not be driven out because white people had discovered gold there. The tribe sued the government, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee. Jackson defied the court and sent troops to Georgia to force the Cherokee west along the infamous Trail of Tears. Two thousand Cherokee died on this death march, and their proud culture was decimated.

So, yes, good advice Ann, you insufferable nitwit.

Via Think Progress

Comments

Previous Comments

Aweee... this one is priceless...

I'm so glad others are pointing this out, too.
That Ann uses an example like this to somehow justify her crusade of hate shows how hypocritical and obnoxious she really is...just thought I'd point out that many are beginning to call out her stupid mistakes:

_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Over at Clownhall, Ann Coulter is calling for Jeb Bush to send out the National Guard "to stop an innocent American from being starved to death in Florida." Having already hipped a startled Canadian nation to the fact that they actually sent its troops to help the US in Viet Nam, she now hopes to inspire Jeb to turn his back on the rule of law using as his role model another lesson from history:


Quote:
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.


Does Ann know that the Supreme Court case she is referring to is the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia decision, which stated that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign and that the tribe could not be forcibly removed from the State of Georgia? Andrew Jackson decided to ignore this decision, and compelled the Cherokee to abandon their property and their homes in the middle of winter, sending them on a forced 800 miles march along the Trail of Tears. It is estimated that 4,000 people, or 25% of the Cherokee Nation, died during the march.

How touching that Ann would fondly bring up an incident that represents a blatant disregard of law for the purpose of inflicting untold cruelty and mass genocide. Thanks for the history lesson, Ann. And for reminding us what you're all about.

From
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ms. Coulter has graced us all this week by opining on the Terri Schiavo case. Coulter's point is more or less that the courts, when tyrannical, need to be put in their place. Don't worry, she assures us, it's all been done before:


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.

This is where my jaw hit the floor.

This quote concerns a very specific, very egregious Supreme Court case, and should sound at least familiar to any high school student of US History. The specifics of the case do not help Ms. Coulter, to put it mildly.

Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justice, explains the consequences of Jackson's Coulteresque decree:


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.

Jesus H. Christ-- when you pick an example, you usually don't pick one where the party you are supporting is engaged in a systematic act of genocide and exploitation of a native people! ILLEGALLY!

[This is where I'd put in a similarly ridiculous example to illustrate how ludicrously bad this one is, but I can't for the life of me think of a worse example than the one that has fallen into my lap]

Ann Coulter may be dead wrong on a lot of issues, but she's not dumb. There's only one word, however, for this particular example: stupid.

From
http://greatbasin2.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/25/22335/2223

Good God you people are really, really stupid. Andrew Jackson was THE only Democrat anybody who does not vote Democrat respects and mostly for the attitude of the quote Anne was listing.

People who are not willing to act like Andrew Jackson don't get to survive to wring their hands about the tactics used in the battle for survival.

Should people engage in genocide against folks who were merely defending their homes. My guess is that you are going to hell if you think that you should.

Having said that, the only reason you folks hearts get to bleed over it is because Andrew Jackson was an integral part of growing a nation that folks respected, and YES, feared.

Think if Jackson were in office that the Islamo-Fascists would be effin with us. If they did they would pay 100,000 lives for EACH single US life. Not 100, not 1000, not ten thousand but 100,000 minimum. That is the behavior which allows later generations to lament the horrors of their ancestors.

Nobody from Carthage around today to lament the actions of their ancestors huh? Rome NEVER faced another Carthaginian terrorist or further generation of terror from Hannibal's grandson. Because when they killed every thing including the bugs, they then salted the earth to make sure no one could live there again.

You folks need to read more Heinlein and WAY less of the NY Times.

Yeah, nice one Dave. Because the only way to build a just society and a strong nation is to kill the shit out of anyone who gets in your way.

Are you really incapable of imagining America growing into a strong and successful nation without slaughtering millions of natives?

Pathetic.

The point isn't that what Jackson did as it related to the Cherokee was right, but rather that he felt that as the head of one of the allegedly coequal branches, that he did not have to take orders from the Supreme Court, and that refusing to obey them did not result in a collapse of the rule of law and the nation.

If for example, our current Congress and President, or near-future ones, were to refuse to enforce the inevitable judicial imposition of gay marriage/civil unions, then it would set up a very interesting showdown. Most Americans oppose such an action by the Courts, so on this specific issue they would naturally side with the Executive and Legislative branches. Countering that natural inclination would be the efforts by the Left to paint a doom and gloom scenario of legal chaos and the breakdown of the rule of law, and to bestow saintly qualities to the Supreme Court and its decisions, making them akin to a pronouncement from God, i.e. they are not to be defied.

It would be a tough fight, but one that conservatives could certainly win. When the Dems/Left start saying that w/o the Courts that minorities and women would be living under the oppression of the evil white male, then the insulting implication -- that even in this day and age the majority is just itching to terrorize and oppress blacks, latinos, women, and homosexuals but are held back by the firm and wise hand of the Judiciary -- will be obvious. And insulting red staters (and the majorities in blue states who oppose gay marriage for that matter) won't help the Dems win any Red States. And telling people that racism and discrimination would prevail w/o the Courts to reign in these impulses will not make them take a more favorable view of the Courts.