Yep.
Posted on 06/26/2015 6:17:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
After conservatives took another gut punch from black-robed Obamacare cheerleader Chief Justice John Roberts, many of us were left wondering just what in the heck is wrong with this guy. After all, these Republican appointees to the Supreme Court are supposed to be on our side, right? They can’t all be David Souter.
It turns out that Ann Coulter sniffed another Souter-esque betrayal in the offing ten years ago:
After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.
So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah … We also know he’s argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
I know it is all the rage in this era of hypersensitive feelings for some conservatives, and almost all moderate Republicans, to bristle at everything Coulter says and be dismissive of her because she has a knack for tossing out an outrageous headline-grabbing comment. Here’s the thing about her: she’s right a lot of the time.
Sure, I’ve got to deduct a lot of points for her flip-flop to become a Romney champion in 2012 but a lot of people were drunk on wishful thinking then (present company excluded). Other than that, she makes a lot of sense.
So maybe pay just a little more attention to her from now on.
And pray that Antonin Scalia lives to be 148.
Yeah you can. But I catch your meaning.
They say Orrin Grant Hatch saved he Clarence Thomas nomination; others say Rick Santorum’s friend Arlen Specter did. But Hatch hasn’t done diddly UT squat since then.
If a president of either party wants to nominate a judge with a particular judicial philosophy, they could pretty easily find federal judges who've been on the bench for ten or more years, and find judges with the judicial philosophies they prefer.
The Dims sure know how to do it. Add to that that the Republicans are too cowardly or too stupid to 'Bork' extreme nominees of the Dims, and we get the kind of court we've had for years.
SCOTUS could have been turned conservative by either Bush, had that been their intent.
Don’t forget that Reagan gave us Kennedy and O’Connor too.
I agree. Few people are right 100% of the time. What I don't get is why some Freepers consider her physically attractive.
Yep.
Can’t stand her and think she is quite the loon ... BUT
even though it was an easy call and to vary a rant “he is who we thought he was!” she, indeed, nailed this one and sometimes she does hit it out of the park.
The politicization of court nominees had not reached the fever pitch during Reagan's terms, at least not until after Bork was rejected.
I'd like to know who advised Reagan about nominees. There is a story about who recommended Kennedy I only caught in part yesterday. Maybe we'll learn more.
Republicans aren't even batting .500 at getting conservatives on the SCOTUS. The Dims seem to be batting 1.000 at putting leftists on. But I don't think either Bush wanted to put two conservatives on the court, and that is why they went with such obscure nominees as Souter and Roberts with not much of a paper trail on the biggest issues.
And maybe hooking up with Bill Maher.
My disgust and contempt for what they have done is beyond measure.
The Court has to at least *try* to interpret the law in light of truth & equality. While I do not approve of “gay” marriage; I cannot dictate what others choose to do. We just have to work around it within the law.
Yeah, she is a little bit skinny.
what i meant is clear if you read Coulter’s piece. Roberts was an empty book when Dubya nominated him. no real paper trail showing how he would rule w.r.t. the Constitution once he was on the SCOTUS. republicans have been burned TOO MANY times by tacking to the middle on their judicial nominees. the democRATS NEVER do that. NEVER. the stupid party always does. and we always rue the day.
the fact that Bork never sat on the SCOTUS but Ginsburg does is a travesty. she’s a 2nd rate legal mind. he was so much more qualified than her. yes, i know Bork was under Reagan, but the congress was full of wishy washy RINOs and that’s why getting Bork through was a problem. i’m tired of the go-along-to-get-along crowd that dominates the stupid party. just really fed up with them all.
I don’t want to see it.
I don’t want to see it.
Her acerbic tongue is the most marvelous speaking device I have ever herd. She ALWAYS knows what she is talking about. When speaking about facts she is always right.
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.