And Stay Away from Ann Coulter's Creme Brulee
Earlier this year, controversial blonde pundit Ann Coulter joked about putting rat poison in Justice John Paul Stevens's creme brulee.
Did Coulter give someone an idea? Check out this story, from the Star-Telegram of Forth Worth:
When federal appellate Judge Danny Boggs said at a Friday legal conference at Las Colinas that physical assaults aimed at judges have come mainly from "the deranged," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor underscored the safety concerns."Every member of the Supreme Court received a wonderful package of home-baked cookies, and I don't know why, the staff decided to analyze them," she recounted. "Each one contained enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court."
Sounds pretty serious, right?
But we must call out Justice O'Connor for exaggerating the seriousness of the threat. It seems the ol' cowgirl is playing fast and loose with the record. As reported by SCOTUS press corps diva Linda Greenhouse:
The danger posed by the packages was immediately apparent. Each contained a typewritten letter stating either, “I am going to kill you,” or, “We are going to kill you,” and adding, “This is poisoned.”
Supreme Court justices get accused of many things. But illiteracy is not usually among them.
Moreover, Justice O'Connor's casual statement of "I don't know why, the staff decided to analyze them" -- implying the deadly treats came thisclose to reaching supreme judicial lips -- is misleading. Again, per the Queen Bee:
All mail received at the Supreme Court is screened, and the tainted packages never reached the justices, said Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer.
So it's not that easy to poison a Supreme Court justice. Furthermore, even if the poisoned food somehow makes it past the initial screening, to reach a justice's chambers, success is still not guaranteed. Why? In addition to their other duties, some Supreme Court clerks serve as food tasters for their bosses.
Finally, we fail to see how Justice O'Connor's tale of the poisoned baked goods refutes Judge Boggs's point that most threats against judges comes from "the deranged." Clearly Barbara Joan March, who sent the poisoned packages to the Supreme Court -- accompanied by notes that helpfully disclosed their toxic nature -- is not a right-thinking person. At the very least, she's not the most sane, nor the most intelligent, resident of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Sitting Ducks on the Bench [Star-Telegram (Fort Worth)]
Justice Recalls Treats Laced With Poison [New York Times]
Ann Coulter to Justice Stevens: Drop Dead -- Here, Let Me Help [Wonkette]
(5) Comments
The one to Justice Scalia should have said "This is not poisoned." Being the textualist he is I'm sure he'd be in trouble.
Hmmmm... then wouldn't a pragmaticist like Breyer have to eat one to know its effects?
It's pretty obvious that O'Connor is supporting, not refuting Bogg's point. In fact, your very first quote says O'Connor "underscored" Boggs. To "underscore" a point means to emphasize or strengthen it.
Also, since the packages never reached the Justices (again it's right there in one of your quotes), it's not clear that O'Connor could have known that notes were included with them. She may have only heard that 'poisoned cookies were sent to you today, and we threw them away'.
Good story, would have been better if you didn't totally botch the main points in order to take a lame potshot at Justice O'Connor.
Reading comprehension for the win!
Anon 7:40 PM: No, YOU'RE the one with reading comprehension problems. Justice O'Connor "underscored the safety concerns," NOT the points of Judge Boggs (whose name you misspelled, btw).
If you go back and read the underlying article, it's clear from context that Justice O'Connor is refuting, not agreeing with, Judge Boggs. Judge Boggs was minimizing the threats to federal judges, by saying such threats just come from a bunch of loonies. So Justice O'Connor tried to refute his point by offering up the poisoned cookies story.
I'm guessing you're not a lawyer. If you were, you would probably know that right now Justice O'Connor is in the middle of a public disagreement with various conservative judges over whether the threat to judicial independence is real or illusory.
One of these jurists is Chief Judge Boggs of the Sixth Circuit, who is quoted in the article. Another is Judge William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit, who wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on the subject:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009059
Try not to comment about matters you don't know anything about. Thank you.
So, with Boggs claiming that threats come from a bunch of loonies, I suppose that means loonies shouldn't be taken seriously? Tell that Jim Brady, the ghost of Ronald Reagan, and the host of other political types who have been targets of loonies.
I agree with the commenter above who remarked that you took a good story and botched it.
And one more thing: being a lawyer has nada to do with partisan polemics.