Ann Coulter: Miers a 'Complete Mediocrity'

Newsmax ^ | Monday, Oct. 3, 2005

[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.

[rcocean]

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.

[Jorge]

Well since Anne didn't like Roberts it's no surprise she doesn't like Miers.

Exactly.
Nothing new here.

[GoldCountryRedneck]

....took 88 posts before the rule was applied.

It's been one of those Mondays ....

[Chena]

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

[sinkspur]

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.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

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.

[jwh_Denver]

Post 111

[sinkspur]

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.

[Enchante]

"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......

[Jim_Curtis]

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?

[Jim_Curtis]

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?

[Chena]

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.

[rcocean]

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."

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

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.

[Chena]

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. :)

[sinkspur]

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?

[jwalsh07]

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. :-}

[Tall_Texan]

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.

[sinkspur]

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?

[Stellar Dendrite]

" 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