Posted on 10/03/2005 3:07:23 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Count Ann Coulter among the conservatives who are unhappy with President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
Asked by NewsMax.com if she considers Miers to be what she had called John Roberts after his nomination - a "tabula rasa” - Coulter, who’s now out with the paperback edition of her best-seller "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” said:
"No. She’s something new: a complete mediocrity.”
Ouch.
She'd never be confirmed. If in the unlikely event she was confirmed, somehow I think the other justices would eventually rip her hair out, duck tape her and throw her in a broom closet. I just can't see that working out very well.
John
Given that Gore lost his home state, it is pretty obvious that a sizable number of people changed their opinion of him between his Senate days and 2000. Why make a big deal out of it?
Even from across the pond, you nail it.
Well, he pretty much sealed the fate of another Clinton presidency with this move. You really think we've got 20 years?
I will admit, I have heard who the nominee is and read a couple of quotes from her past, but not much more. I do not see how it would be wise to put someone on the court without andybackground as a judge. That is me, and I will admit to not knowing much about the procedure, precedence, etc in the case of qualified nominations for something as significant as the SCOTUS. I have read some of the comments about her and a thought struck me. The democrats have been saying from the getgo that they are going to fight the next nominee. Maybe Bush, knowing this has picked a sacrificial lamb so to speak for the democratic wolves. He has it worked out with her that this is going to be ugly and she will probably not be passed by the senate. Perhaps they are doing this, to play the democrats fighting hand, and then they will choose an uber conservative constitutionalist. The nation will be tired and sick of the fighting over a judge and the people will be ready for their senators to just pick one already. Then again, I may be wrong.
Uht-Oh. If Mad Ivan is spankin' me, I'll have to reconsider my position. :)
OK. Reconsidered. Not changed, though. This is just a blip on the radar screen.
I'm betting that she flunks the Democratic Smell Test, then President Bush brings out the Big Guns in the form of the Scalia or the Thomas we were promised. She's a close friend of the President. Who else is better suited to take a fall for him on this?
I can afford a "wait and see" attitude through the end of the year. We all can. It's not like Congress is actually getting anything done these days besides p*ssin' away my money. And if they're distracted with this, then all the better for my pocketbook. ;)
Only she wouldn't have made it out of the Judiciary Committee. Coulter is adept at pissing everybody off, with a few exceptions.
I don't want a "conservative" activist as a judge any more than a liberal activist. And Coulter would be a conservative activist.
sir, do you have a link to verify that? (i am not doubting that, because ive seen the link on the harriet miers the pick-ap thread, but cant go through 2k posts)
Yes, "pathetic" is exactly what it is. I have two theories on the reactions I'm seeing on FR. First theory, some of our Republican friends have such a biased and/or self-serving agenda that they wouldn't be happy unless their very own personal pick was chosen by our President. Second theory, Free Republic has been overrun by Democrats, Liberals, and DU'ers who are posting as over-emotional Republicans in order to make us all look like a bunch of whining, ignorant sissies.
IMO, both theories are bad all the way around.
Questions: Is she a member of the Federalist society or has she appeared at one fo their conventions as a speaker? Do you know??
Thanks! "Al" (Veteran of the 1985 Federalist Society Conference in D.C., attended by Scalia, Bork, Graglia, and many others...)
No, but she plagerizes stuff sometimes.
She's a joke. I couldn't care less about what she says.
That said, I'm not jazzed about the pick, but Bush knows her well, and I don't think he'd appoint her if he didn't know enough. This isn't like Souter, HW didn't know Souter. W knows Harriet well.
There is a contingency on the right who will oppose her for that reason and that reason alone, originalist or not.
I would have seriously never suggested Coulter for the pick, but seeing as her background is Constitutional Law, we should have gone with Ann.
Seeing her take questions from Ted Kennedy would be worth the price of asmission.
Just like my mom, she goes to church all the time and thinks she is a Christian, yet she believes there are many roads to heaven.
IF, and I repeat IF, Miers is a true believer in Christ, then she will be alright.
You have a right to your opinion. If you are saying that Ann is not an incisive commentator, no problem with that (although I think she is). But it seems the argument here is about her looks. You think she got where she is because of her looks, and I think she got where she is because she has cojones. She is sharp, witty, provocative and she doesn't back down to anyone-ever. I like that about Ann, and the fact that she is a babe, well that's frosting on the cake!!! ;-)
There are people at FR who think the same of you (and me).
It's intellect and moral commitment to conservatism and strict constitutional principles that matter in a SCOTUS associate justice, not whether she's someone you would like invite to a ball game or dinner.
William Brennan by all accounts was a consummate gentleman. Heaven forbid that this nation is ever afflicted with another like him on SCOTUS. We would not survive it.
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.