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.
Not me, I served Uncle Sam. Public service can be a good thing or a bad thing. I have a problem with folks who can't think outside the box. Folks who insist that one must be a judge prior to serving on the SCOTUS.
I see, so you think all public servants are parasites. Are you an anarchist?
Actually not, some are, some aren't. Yeah, I'm an anarchist.
Anyway, to answer your quesiton, I take the conservative position that people in high positions of authority should have extensive experience related to what they're doing. A CEO should have extensive experience as a high level manager in a company that's in the the same or related industry. Likewise, Supreme Court Justices, being the highest judges in the land, should have experience either as judges or as public servants in other important, high level judicial roles.
Yeah, well that's simply jim dandy. Now why do you suppose the constitution has never been amended to reflect your wants and needs?
Being smart and capable is not enough to qualify a person for any high-level position. You have to have related experience. If it's a private sector position, it means private sector experience. If it's a judicial position, it means judicial experience.
You're a penumbra kind of guy/gal. The constitution doesn't mean what it says, it means what you say it says. Thankfully, Bush didn't pick you for anything.
Oh yeah. Constitutional law is just oh so easy. Why bother sending supreme court justices to law school? Just pick any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street.
Not a bad idea, better Tom, Dick or Harry rather than Ruth, David or John Paul.
You're portrayal of this lady as some bumbling bumpkin is disgraceful. But why don't we see if your resume allows you cast stones at her. She graduated with an undergraduate degree in mathematics and then got her law degree. She went on to head a law firm comprised of some 400 lawyers and from there to be the Chief White House Counsel. Along the way she was named one of the 100 most powerful lawyers in the country several times by the National Law Journal and as one of the top 50 women lawyers in America.
Now just what is it that you do that allows you to judge her qualifications for the job?
Or Miers?
Maybe you should have spelled it 'whatever W wants?'
Wrong. All spending bills require the President's signature before they become law. The president has yet to veto a single spending bill.
Furthermore, the President PROPOSED much of the out-of-control spending. Whose idea was the medicare prescription drug bill, hmmmmm...?
Bush shouldn't get all the bullsh*t blame for out of control Congressional spending, especially since congress refuses to give him the line item veto.
If he refuses to use the regular veto, what makes you think he's going to use the line-item veto? You Bush Bots are a real piece of work.
He's gotten confirmation that Miers is indeed a true-blue conservative.
Okay, maybe she's a true-blue conservative. That's good. I want right-wing judges too. But since when is it conservatives to ignore competence? Doesn't it bother you in the least that she has never held any important judicial post?
The Prof made an assertion without any basis in fact. Now you have sworn to it. It is still an assertion without any basis in fact. She was a democrat, democrats donate to the DNC. For that you may burn her at the stake, but nor for supporting Dukakis without evidence of same. For all we know she voted for Bush 41.
At any rate, I her ideology is really a side issue. Fact is, no nominee so utterly lacking in competence should ever be nominated, regarless of her ideology.
You are probably incompetent to judge her competence. I'm awaiting your resume.
Ideology is no substitute for competence.
Words to live by. Now if you would just prove that she is either an ideologue or incompetent you might have something. But right now, you've got nothing but innuendo and bs.
Let's see...Assistant Attorney General vs. White House Counsel. Nope, no difference there /sarcasm.
That's the fourth side of a triangle.
Maybe you ought to stop acting like a kid.
Oh, they don't?
Well, he wasn't any more of a jurist than Meirs has been, was he?
You should have stayed in the water.
By jwalsh07's logic, Michael Moore may well have voted for GWB. After all, despite his massive fundraising and proagandizing efforts, he might well have gone into the booth and pulled the lever for W!
Ooooh oooh oooh! Can I be the doomsayer who gets to wear the sandwich board and warn heedless passersby?
You and I both know that neither of us knows who she voted for in 1988. The difference is I'll admit it and you won't.
Now you're the spelling police? Do you have the pocket protector and the short pants with the built in wedgie??
Has Anne ever met the woman? Jay Sekulow has, many times, and is very pleased with the nomination.
Ad hominem.
Go whine to the moderator.
When you use it I win; why do I need a referee?
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.