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.
People seem to get offended when I say Coulter is the conservative equivalent to Michael Moore; its true through. When she calls for the killing of innocent Muslims and conversion for the survivors, she sounds like a raving lunatic... almost German. A lot of liberals like to paint of Republicans with the Coulter paintbrush, and it hurts our credibility.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
So how did they get Roberts through?
I'll still take Ann...and I'm talkin' intellectually.
Miers is...as they say...Souter in drag. That's what I'm afraid of, but you and yours think there's no problem. BS...this is far from a sure thing.
The same way they are going to get Miers thru. By having her keep her opinions to herself.
Oh, now it all makes sense. I'm sorry too.
I heard Kondracke today say that Miers used to be pro-abortion, but had a religious conversion, and is now on the most extreme end of the pro-life movement. Apparently, he got this info from a Dallas reporter who knows her.
The bottom line, though, is that you will never know how a judicial appointee is going to do until they've been there a couple of years.
I was accused of being a spy from CHAOS last night.
How do you know you what you "can't" do when you never even try to do it in the first place?
The same way I know she's the best candidate--my opinion.
Sometimes you have to take one step back to take two forward.
Paging Douglas Ginsburg...
She'd probably "wear the pants" in any marriage, too, which is a bit of a turnoff. Aggressive females are akin to effeminate males.
I liked her book Treason and have found her opinions, prior to this bout, rather enjoyable.
Coulter was way way beyond silly to diss Miers for a lack of an "ivy league" law school education.
Very few women of Miers' age got to attend ivy league schools when they were younger..
Miers received both her undergraduate and law degrees from SMU. She graduated with a bachelors in mathematics in 1967 and a juris doctor in 1970 from the Dedman School of Law. Miers was one of eight women out of 100 students in her 1970 graduating class.
~snip~
During Miers time at SMU she was elected to the honorary society and Mortar Board, in addition to serving on law review. Miers also received the prestigious M Award given to students who are especially dedicated to the university.
~snip~
Thanks for the link.
True enough.
But it is also abundantly clear (and just as true) that President Bush is either afraid or ashamed to put forth a clear, unambiguous conservative Constitutionalist candidate for the US Supreme Court.
After witnessing dozens of anti-Constitutional opinions coming out of the federal Ciruit Courts and the US Supreme Court these past 30 years, it should not be surprising that good honest conservative Americans like me want a lock-solid right wing freakin' candidate.
Instead, Bush gives us maybe's, and trust me's.
Maybe Harriet Miers is a born again Christian, and that is great.
But this entire mess is of George W. Bush's own making, and was entirely unnecessary.
I am sick to my stomach over this because I like and admire the Prez, and want him to succeed in everything.
I only fear he is under so much pressure these days he is morphing into his father.
"But I'm talking technical qualifications...apart from ideology. To get confirmed, and do the job effectively on the SCOTUS ...we need both."
It's clear that she can read and understand the Constitution as written. What more "technical qualifications" are needed?
YOU SAID..."What more "technical qualifications" are needed?"
I was under the impression that a background in Constitutional law or judicial experience was a plus...though not necessarily a requirement. Maybe you dont really need that. Maybe you dont even need to be a lawyer to be on the SCOTUS. You do need to be very smart and write well.
Once again...Im not talking minimal requirements for the job...Im talking BEST QUALIFIED of ALL the known conservative candidates out there.
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.