Posted on 10/04/2005 10:39:32 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
Ann Coulter just took apart President Bush's SCOTUS nominee on the air during her appearance on the Mike Rosen show here in Denver on 850am KOA. She called for listeners to write their senators to oppose the nomination. Wish you could have heard it!
Ann said - "Totally unqualified", called Judge Roberts "a 'dream' candidate in light of this nomination", mentioned "cronyism" over and over. Much more that I'm trying to digest. I called the station to see if they saved the audio, but no luck on that. Mike Rosen was just about speechless as Ann went on and on about why this was a lousy choice.
I agree with Ann. Huge mistake and missed opportunity.
Ann's choice, Janice Rodgers-Brown. Not enough intestinal fortitude in the White House to go with that choice.
Can't wait for Ann's column on this nomination later this week.
A nominee with a judicial philosophy akin to a Scalia or a Thomas, huh? And I suppose in his view Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a clone of Phyllis Schlafy. How come a raging liberal like Ginsberg receives a free pass, then when our turn comes we are afraid to even nominate a Janis Rodgers - Brown? For shame!
The fact that one pundit-who has no power to impact the executive's decisions-critiques a choice that the vast majority of conservative Republicans would have a problem with anyway does not absolve him of responsibility.
If Miers is such an inspired choice than she would have had the overwhelming-if not uniform-support of conservatives in this country.
The fact that there is an acrimonious debate occurring at the moment is evidence that she isn't the brilliant selection that some people are claiming.
Majorities don't matter when the filibuster is threatened.
I don't think the GOP Senate has the guts to pull the nuclear option over a SC nominee. Not with Frist and his stock sale problems in charge.
She is a religious conservative.
What you're missing is that the President knows her. If you were appointing her, then I'd say you're taking a chance. The President knows exactly what he's doing, though, so it really just comes down to the question of whether you trust the President.
I'm getting the impression that a lot of Freepers don't. On the other hand, it's really too late to be moaning about that. If you did not trust him, then you should not have voted for him.
Ann lost my attention with her actions over Roberts.
Troubles I may have with Miers, I will not suddenly unite around people I am not fond of. This includes Coulter.
"One doesn't need a law degree to understand the US Constitution."
It's seems the main skill taught at law school is how to sound intellelectual while saying the most idiotic, outlandish things possible.
Yes, it was sarcasm. I forget the tag. Actually, I didn't think it was necessary.
Sorry you misunderstood, mhking. You must be a DU troll.
/sarcasm
That's not what I said, I said somebody like Janice Rogers Brown!!!!, Roberts had no real paper trail and was probably the cleanest Nominee ever, Janice Rogers Brown was voted down 3 times I think, before the gutless 7 ran from the Nuke Option, do you think Bush forgot that?
Since St. Ann, queen of the Lexis-Nexis search and patron saint to all anorexics has spoken
Time to impeach the president - his crime, we don't like his nominee!!
(If you don't recognize extreme sarcasm, you are too stupid to be breathing)
Were you listening to the interview this morning on-line? Based on what you wrote here you had to be... ;)
Of course, I could be wrong, but it's a thought.
You haven't a clue whether Miers is a "true" conservative. Bush knows though. He's nominated nothing but strong conservatives to the bench. There's no reason to jump to any conclusions that he's suddenly changed directions.
2. Calling someone "Bush's legal secretary" is a cheap shot.
3. I realize Ann has a degree from Cornell. I don't necessarily consider that a recommendation. Those of us out here in the Midwest are not that enthralled with the Ivy League schools and their product.
And as an aside, it seems to me that when one is supposed to be a supporter of the Republicans (in general), one should tailor one's criticism to the target. While Miers may not be the best qualified, it is simply ridiculous to act like she is some sort of coffee lady who takes dictation. She is a self-made corporate attorney who rose to the head of a large law firm. That is an accomplishment. For Ann to denigrate this woman in this manner makes Ann look petty.
It was intended as sarcastic humor.
I love Ann and the way she riles the left, her book on the Venona Project was great, but she is sometimes out of control, as in this case. So many conservatives lose site of the fact that we have a weak majority in the Senate. If it were the House that confirmed justices, you would be talking a different ball game. The moderate republican senators have been the impediment to many of Bush's ideas and nominations.
In the Miers case, though I would have preferred a better pedigree and am not willing to endorse her at this time, I am willing to take a wait and see approach. Bush's track record for judicial nominations for the lower courts has been excellent and he has consistently outmaneuvered democrats in the past. I think Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt based on his judicial nomination track record.
One also has to remember, there is the possibility of a liberal judge(s), Stevens and/or Ginsberg, on the court retiring before this term is done, do you really want to waste your ammo here, to keep moderate republicans in line, when there could be a bigger, more important battle down the road to call in those chips ? If you use that card here, they may balk down the road.
Politics is a very complex game, and much like poker, you have to keep your cards close to the vest, and wisely bet your chips. This is a political poker game, the aim of the game, is to have all the chips at the end, but to get there, you win some larger and smaller pots here and there, you fold some hands, you don't throw in all your chips too soon, you lure your opponent into continuing to bet, waiting for that right moment to go 'all in' or forcing them to go 'all in' or fold after they have already wagered significant political capital.
Those on the fringe left or right are the suckers at the poker table, they play with emotion rather than with their heads.
Sadly, you may be correct regarding the nuclear option. I just think a SCOTUS fillibuster would not fly with the public without some serious justification. The dems have not forgotten what obstructionism reaped them in Nov. 2004.
There was the same acrimonious debate over John Roberts, though there were fewer participants.
Anyone who thinks that Roberts was not a brilliant choice is blind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.