Skip to comments.
Ann Coulter: Miers a 'Complete Mediocrity'
Newsmax ^
| Monday, Oct. 3, 2005
Posted on 10/03/2005 3:07:23 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Count Ann Coulter among the conservatives who are unhappy with President Bushs 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, whos now out with the paperback edition of her best-seller "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), said:
"No. Shes something new: a complete mediocrity.
Ouch.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; bushbetrayal; bushbotrage; bushlies; coulter; harrietmiers; miers; notscalia; notthomas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 641-651 next last
To: Chena
OK. Info only.
But you have to admit - it's logical assumption that if you post it, you agree with it.
MOST OF THE TIME.
241
posted on
10/03/2005 4:39:05 PM PDT
by
rcocean
(Copyright is theft and loved by Hollywood socialists)
To: gondramB
Well since Anne didn't like Roberts it's no surprise she doesn't like Miers. Exactly.
Nothing new here.
242
posted on
10/03/2005 4:39:11 PM PDT
by
Jorge
(Q)
To: Always Right; dts32041
....took 88 posts before the rule was applied.
It's been one of those Mondays ....
243
posted on
10/03/2005 4:40:06 PM PDT
by
GoldCountryRedneck
("A Liberal with a cause is far more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude." - - Unknown)
To: WV Mountain Mama
I have plenty of reading about Miers to do myself. I try not to make snap decisions on such important matters. Plus, I could hurt myself doing that. LOL
244
posted on
10/03/2005 4:41:30 PM PDT
by
Chena
(I'm not young enough to know everything)
To: Paul Ross
And what you confuse as a conservative activist is probably an "originalist". Hence, you are an anti-originalist. You opposed Reagan, too. Yeah. That Reagan. He put in two of the squishiest judges on the Court.
I know what I mean by "originalist" and you are putting words in my mouth.
245
posted on
10/03/2005 4:41:41 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(Breed every trace of the American Staffordshire Terrier out of existence!)
To: rcocean
I'm saying that in spite of his support for national health insurance, racial integration, among a host of other progressive policies at the time, he would be denounced by the modern-day "progressive"-read radical, insatiable moonbat-because he was patriotic, believed in a strong national defense, and was willing to defend this country at all costs.
That is how far the political debate has moved in this country.
In my opinion, in the wrong direction.
To: Jim_Curtis
247
posted on
10/03/2005 4:42:11 PM PDT
by
jwh_Denver
(Become a liberal. Try to make everyone's life miserable.)
To: Glenn
From her 8 coworkers on SCOTUS. It is a real job with real work to be done. I doubt she's used to it. But since you don't know, you ought to keep your mouth shut.
The evidence points to Meiers as a workaholic.
Which means she outworks you and me, together.
Most SC justices don't work very hard. Their opinions are written by clerks, and tweaked by the justices.
248
posted on
10/03/2005 4:45:03 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(Breed every trace of the American Staffordshire Terrier out of existence!)
To: Patriotic Bostonian
"honestly believe I and many other so-called nobodies would be great Justices"
I always loved Wm. F. Buckley's remark that he would rather be ruled by "the first 1000 names from the Boston phone book" than by the Harvard faculty..... :^)
I agree that any decent literate US citizen with solid conservative values would make a better SCOTUS justice than the liberals we've seen on the court, BUT I do think sophisticated constitutional learning and argument is essential to waging and winning the "culture war" within the legal profession. That's where someone like Luttig could have a huge impact, but our PC-nation seemed to require that Bush pass over male candidates on this pick. If a justice does not write* legal opinions that carry weight in the profession and get cited by judges, law professors, etc. then his/her influence will be much more limited (though having one of 9 votes in a closely divided court is nothing to be dismissed).
*[It's become well known that the clerks play a large, sometimes, dominant role in writing opinions for the busy justices, but the best justices still do control the language and content of their SCOTUS opinions.]
Anyway, fwiw, I'm cautiously hopeful about Miers.... I think there were better candidates out there, but I do think she'll be quite good and a lot better than the liberal riff-raff who have dominated the court for 40+ years...... I'm just not sure we'll see her opinions treated as weighty by the legal profession, but then even Scalia (who is universally acknowledged as brilliant) is treated more with amusement than respect by most of the leftist legal culture......
249
posted on
10/03/2005 4:45:36 PM PDT
by
Enchante
(Would you trust YOUR life to Mayor Nagin or Governor Blankhead?)
To: jwalsh07
I don't see how you could possibly arrived at such a conclusion. Do you have something against lawyers who spent their careers in the private sector being nominated to SCOTUS? You do realize that this woman did contribute to the DNC five days before the Dukakis/Bush41 election and you are ok with that?
250
posted on
10/03/2005 4:46:00 PM PDT
by
Jim_Curtis
(How do we prevent someone from torching his city if he will be rewarded as a lottery winner?)
To: jwalsh07
I don't see how you could possibly arrived at such a conclusion. Do you have something against lawyers who spent their careers in the private sector being nominated to SCOTUS? You do realize that this woman did contribute to the DNC five days before the Dukakis/Bush41 election and you are ok with that?
251
posted on
10/03/2005 4:46:09 PM PDT
by
Jim_Curtis
(How do we prevent someone from torching his city if he will be rewarded as a lottery winner?)
To: rcocean
Yes, I agree, one could logically believe that, but in this case that wasn't the case. Sorry for getting sassy. If you've read any of my posts today you will see that I have in no way come out "for", nor "against", Miers. I am searching for information, from both sides (for or against) before I reach any sort of concensus on this issue. I learned a long, long time ago not to jump to conclusions about anything. That would be downright silly and rather immature, IMHO.
252
posted on
10/03/2005 4:47:19 PM PDT
by
Chena
(I'm not young enough to know everything)
To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Sorry, I didn't understand your post.
As you state, certain thing were agreed to almost everyone (even by then left-wing politicians) 50 years ago, would make them "reactionaries" today.
As Ronald Reagan said... " I didn't leave the Democrat party, it left me."
253
posted on
10/03/2005 4:48:43 PM PDT
by
rcocean
(Copyright is theft and loved by Hollywood socialists)
To: sinkspur
If he was willing to fight for CAFTA, and a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, if he was willing to fight for a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, then he should have been willing to fight for something that his party is almost unanimously in favor of.
Specter, among other feckless members of the Republican caucus, might have fought him, but I sincerely believe that we would have ultimately prevailed.
This is the same justification that was used during the debate on drastically reforming entitlements-another issue on which a conservative president retreated-which took place during the mid-80s.
There isn't the constituency for it.
We'll never prevail.
The Democrats are intransigent.
All negatives, never raising the question what if?
This is a failure of will.
To: Jim_Curtis
Do you realize how many of today's staunchest Republicans used to contribute to the DNC? Not everyone was born a Republican. Some had to grow, learn and mature before they realized which political party was best for America. Others may have supported a DNC candidate simply because of one issue that concerned them. Sort of like some of our FRiends who have suggested they would leave and join the DNC if they didn't get their way on a given issue.
Not trying to argue with you, just pointing something out. :)
255
posted on
10/03/2005 4:50:47 PM PDT
by
Chena
(I'm not young enough to know everything)
To: JCEccles
I find it interesting and telling that your posts are purely of the ad hominem variety and that you don't even attempt to defend Miers on the merits.Read them more closely, Eccles. I trust that Bush has not suddenly lost his bearings when it comes to SC nominees. Only Bush knows her views. But she clearly knows what Bush wants, as she has vetted scores of judicial nominees.
There are no secrets here. Except that the Democrats are not going to squeeze what they want out of her.
You don't know "the merits," either, yet you are willing to trash Meiers. Why is that?
256
posted on
10/03/2005 4:52:01 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(Breed every trace of the American Staffordshire Terrier out of existence!)
To: Jim_Curtis
You do realize that this woman did contribute to the DNC five days before the Dukakis/Bush41 election and you are ok with that?I give her a pass on that one and the other two because of her support of Phil Gramm and because my Dad and Uncles were all democrats who would puke if they saw the what the democrat party has evolved into. It's a Christian thing. :-}
To: rcocean
Any evidence that she is another Scalia? Of course not. Nobody does. Nobody knows how a judge is going to decide cases until they are put on the bench. They're like hurricanes - you can predict which way they are most likely to spin but they can surprise you at any moment.
258
posted on
10/03/2005 4:55:05 PM PDT
by
Tall_Texan
("Give me liver, Dee, or give me beef.")
To: Jim_Curtis
You do realize that this woman did contribute to the DNC five days before the Dukakis/Bush41 election and you are ok with that? Enough with that canard! Ronald Reagan, as a governor, signed a liberal abortion bill, and changed from the Democrat to the Republican party five years before he ran for governor of California.
So what?
259
posted on
10/03/2005 4:56:12 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(Breed every trace of the American Staffordshire Terrier out of existence!)
To: Jim_Curtis
" You do realize that this woman did contribute to the DNC five days before the Dukakis/Bush41 election and you are ok with that?"
Do you have a link to that information? I need it
260
posted on
10/03/2005 4:57:26 PM PDT
by
Stellar Dendrite
( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 641-651 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson