high metabolism
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.
I'm sorry you don't like the choice but I think you ought to at least wait for the hearings to make your judgment that she isn't the best choice.
I appreciate your response, but to stick with a basketball analogy, you put your offense on the court before inbounding the ball to see how the defense is going to set up. This is leaving our best shot in the locker room and throwing in the towel. If it looks bad, call a new play. Instead we're projecting what may or may not happen and taking an enormous risk.
Nothing is going to come out of the hearings. Her time with the president is privileged and not going to be revealed, and her own personal beliefs will be protected under the Ginsburg precedent. Besides, even if we knew for a fact she's pro-life, she's not going to tell that to the senate. So we're left with nothing but a question mark until the first rulings come along. That's why I'm calling this a half-court heave.
Playing "not to a lose" is a sure way to lose.
"not to lose"
I forgot to address the issue of voting for Republicans again. Personally I don't care how you vote but I think you ought to wait and see how this nomination plays out in the coming weeks rather than burning your bridges behind you.
This is either a stupid nomination or a brilliant one. Time will tell. When either one becomes apparent, vote however you want.
Be nice to me. I am a compassionate conservative. I cry easily.
Hey, I know what you are saying. Maybe I do have too much faith. The conservatives in the Senate can still vote No on her if their meetings with her and the confirmation hearings don't go well (as far as they are concerned).
100% agree
Why are you so focused on Ann's appearance?
What if she had crooked teeth, would you latch on to that too?
It is a waste of time and predictable.
Coulter and Bozelle on Hannity Radio at 5:00 PM EST.
Ann is not anorexic! Don't you have any reasoned arguments to make?
Wait there is a difference? They sure seem like the same party anymore
You started off innacurate..... Congress did not vote a formal declaration of war against the terrorists as specified in the Constitution: To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; All we got was a vote authorizing military action, not a formal declaration of war. If he would have asked for the Declarations of War as did the commie FDR after Pearl Harbor, his peace loonie critics wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I despised slick willie with a white hot rage, and had high hopes for this administration when it was elected, but all the fumbling and incompetence had turned me and a whole bunch of others sour on it. We expected better and deserved better. He is in way over his head, the deficit in leadership is glaring, the decision making questionable, and the toadies in his inner circle laughable. His talent for personal pickin' is next to nil. He panders to everybody especially the conservatives, then flouts the limits of the Constitution and does what he he dam well pleases,,,instead of solving problems---spends his way out of them, its pander, spend, pander, spend... OH do I miss the Gipper right about now!
Being president of the bar is like being den mother to a Cub Scout troop. It's great for learning how to bring people together and manage them, but doesn't have a thing to do with actually practicing law.
I'm not saying she's not a nice lady, a stalwart Christian and a good lawyer, I'm saying that with the upcoming controversies on free speech, FEC control of political sites like Freep, attempts to outlaw guns, and homosexual "rights," we needed a Constitutionally brilliant legal scholar, which she is not.
It's like being a NASCAR racer, and you're about to run the biggest race of your life, and instead of the best F1 mechanic walking up to tune up your car, the owner brings out Gomer Pyle...a sweet, kindly-natured good guy, but not really a mechanic.
You'd like to sit and share a pack of peanuts with Gomer, but as far as making your car the best it can be...it ain't a'gonna' happen.
I shudder to think of what the hearings will be like when she's asked deep, probing questions about matters arcane and convoluted. I guarantee you we won't be that impressed. She's simply NOT a deeply knowledgeable Constitutional scholar like Scalito, Luttig, McConnell and others
She's a nice lady, I'm sure, and it'd be fun to sit and chat with her, but I don't want to see her trying to come up with legal arguments to undermine Roe V. Wade or Miller, or refute Gonzalez's or Hilliary's attempts to restrict gun ownership further...
Ed
The breadth and dept of your analysis is astounding. /sarc
What, no comment about her needing a cheeseburger?
Exactly my sentiments! How in the world can someone interpret the law who does not know the law?
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.