Ann Coulter just took apart SCOTUS nominee on the Mike Rosen show (My report)

Ann Coulter's appearance on the Mike Rosen show, 850am KOA ^ | This morning, Mon. Oct. 4th | Report from Mike Rosen show

[daviscupper]

I can not argue with a single thing you wrote. I am truly baffled by his reluctance to take on the Senate Democrats and RINOS. He fights tenaciously during elections and stands on principle overseas come hell or high water but just caves into DemoRats and RINOS on legislation and Judicial nominations. Amazing! I am so disappointed. This is just baffling. So tragic. I guess it will be up to conservative Senators to vote her down and hopefully derail this nomination.

[highball]

Do you really think any Republican Senators will vote against her? I don't. I don't see them publicly saying that W and his friends aren't conservative enough.

This Presidency will go down as one of the most schizophrenic in history. Great overseas, miserable at home.

[daviscupper]

Right now I don't think any Republican Senator will vote against her. I am hoping that during the course of the hearings enough doubt will be raised re her bonafides that it will difficult for Republican conservatives to vote for her. Could be very wishful thinking on my part.

[daviscupper]

I now admit that I may have "misunderestimated" Dubya. Ms Miers may turn out to be far more enlightened than I previously thought.

[andyk]

Look, I don't want to start a flame war with you, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Bill of Rights applies equally to the Federal governement as it does the State governments, therefore your whole premise is flawed.

With your attitude, yeah, you do want to start a flame war. You're talking about incorporation, and not only is it a bunch of BS inasmuch as the 14th amendment is concerned, but it has not been applied to the entire Bill of Rights. So, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Tell me what premise is flawed. Please.

[andyk]

I need to correct this statement just a tad. The Bill of Rights does not apply equally to the Feds and States, but almost equally. FYI, the genesis of this was Gitlow v. New York case in 1925 for anyone who's interested.

LOL!

Of course, andyk will argue that this was just an illustration of judicial activism. Then again, I doubt he's ever thought through what would happen if states could ignore the First Amendement whenever a majority decided to do so. Don't think that would happen in the US? Well, I don't want to find out. Seems to me there's a sect in Utah that would love to establish a state religion - but I digress.

Um, you posted this to me, but you're certainly not talking to me! I can't come to any other conclusion that you believe that prior to the 14th amendment, and the absurd "incorporation" that followed, the bill of rights applied to State governments as well (or should have). Of course, andyk is now 3rd person andyk. andyk likes it. andyk enjoys civil discussion. You believe that the Bill of Rights is incomplete without the 14th amendment's incorporation. You appear to have disdain for our system of federalism.

Let andyk further explain his position. You asked what I would think about a porn shop opening next to a school or church. I replied by saying there is nothing the federal government could do about it, that it would be a state issue. I said this because there is no power given to the federal government to prohibit such an activity, aside from some twisted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. I suggested that it is a state matter. My answer solely relied on the restrictions put on it by the specific powers laid out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not the Bill of Rights. Your meandering point is moot.

[sola_fide]

I really am not trying to start a flame war. I apologize if my attitude came across that way. I am curious as to your thoughts on a couple of things.

1. I take it you disagree with the "incorporation" idea. So, am I safe in assuming you have no problem with a state or local government establishing a state religion, state run media, a state police that conducts searches and seizures without a warrant, etc. I'm truly interested in how you think this is workable.
2. If my assumption in #1 is correct, doesn't this really mean that all of our personal liberties are derived from the state?

I realize we've gotten far off the track of our original discussion, but I'm curious what you think about these things.

[GraceCoolidge]

I only raised the subject because her defenders cite her faith, repeatedly, as one of this nomination's strong points.

I don't think this is the point of citing her faith. The issue is the dearth of information about her legal philosophy. I don't believe commentators are pointing to her faith as a qualification in and of itself; rather, the point is that someone of her faith background is unlikely to embrace the liberal social positions that seem frequently to lead Judges into legislating from the bench.

[GraceCoolidge]

The idea that she would need to be influenced by others in order to come to any definitive, coherent conclusion on key Constitutional issues is the precise reason why should never have been nominated in the first place.

I don't want a Supreme Court justice that needs to be hectored into arriving at the proper decisions, I want one who knows what's right from the start and doesn't feel compelled to act only on the prompting of others.

My hope is that the President knows that Ms. Meirs is indeed a conservative, and one whose conservative philosophy is an integral part of her belief system. I think this possibility is where her evangelical Christianity is most interesting. Perhaps it reflects a truly conservative social outlook and one that reflects deeply held moral beliefs that are likely to stand the test of time. I would prefer a Justice who is a "true" conservative, someone who believes it fully and completely, and who is not beholden to the intellectual elite. The combination of her evangelical Christianity and her experience outside the rarefied air of the judiciary, I hope, means a true conservative who is unlikely to be swayed by the intellectual posturing of a liberal colleague.

[GraceCoolidge]

"Maybe you dont even need to be a lawyer to be on the SCOTUS. You do need to be very smart and write well."

Except for the person who wrote this nails-on-the-blackboard sentence : "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." I think it is from Casey? I can't read that sentence without shuddering.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

It's not only conservatives who are expressing disappointment and/or consternation at this nomination, it's everyone, the sole exception being the Democrats in the United States Senate, who realize that they couldn't ask for a better nominee, at least from their perspective.

[Cboldt]

It's not only conservatives who are expressing disappointment and/or consternation at this nomination, it's everyone, the sole exception being the Democrats in the United States Senate, who realize that they couldn't ask for a better nominee, at least from their perspective.

So far, they have been non-combative, but in a non-substantive way. They are digging for dirt right now.

I am truly confounded by this nomination.

[jmc813]

They were both on the same page(ala when the democrats are on the attack) using the phrase "Bush flinched". An elitist, is an elitist, is an elitist.

Levin is one of the most down-to-earth, self-depreciating, no-bull$hit guys in all of the media. He is no elitist.

[AntiGuv]

I've been wondering lately how many conservative icons will be sacrificed at the altar of sycophantic Bush-worship before the next three years are up.

[AntiGuv]

If you actually want to hear the interview, here ya go!

[jwalsh07]

Why ask me? I'm not anybodys sycophant and I worship God. You should know that by now, I march to the beat of my own drummer.

[AntiGuv]

I wasn't referring to you by my description. It's just striking to me how viciously many freepers have turned on Ann Coulter basically since her column on the Roberts nomination. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but before she dared criticize GWB's nominees I don't recall many comments around here about what a 'ditzy, anorexic, grandstanding bimbo' Ann Coulter supposedly is..

[unseen]

Yes it could be a tempest in a tea cup. However, I think the overwhelming outcry is due to the fact that the Conservatives understand that this pick is very important. Our very way of life is at stake here. The Court has shown in the last 30 years that they do not respect the Constitution. Kelo I think cemented that feeling. Say what you will about liberals at least they fight for their believes. True most of their beliefs are nuts but they fight for them. Is it too much to ask that since we won the house, the senate, and the White House that our ELECTED leaders act like the winners and not the losers? All the stealth candidates have come from Republican Presidents. the Democrats nominate far left nut cases and they get confirm. Could we not at least nominate a strong verifiable conservative. I don't even care if their position on abortion is known. I want someone that has shown that they respect the Constitution and the original meaning of the Constitution. No one respects a coward and that is what it appears the Republicans did here they blinked. We are in a war here and I think the only ones who truly understand this is the liberals.

[Shortstop7]

Ann has such a brilliant mind I am willing to hear her out on this- she is so right all the time

Ann's mouth is overstepping her brain. Green is not her color. I'm weary of hearing how brilliant she is. She's become nothing but a basher.

[Salvation]

I agree.