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.

[Right Wing Professor]

By the way, I also like Staffordshire terriers. Lovely dogs.

[jwalsh07]

LOL. You win nothing. You lost the moment you attacked the woman with a false assertion not supportable by any fact.

[sinkspur]

You like pit bulls? No surprise there.

When you're down to correcting spelling, you've run out of arguments.

[curiosity]

Well, he wasn't any more of a jurist than Meirs has been, was he?

Assistant Attorney Generals at least have to take cases to trial.

[browardchad]

Ms. Miers is that jurist.

By what standard is Ms. Miers a jurist? Wishful thinking? She has no experience in constitutional law, has no judicial experience, and according to a post on National Review, has never argued a major case. Where's her "record that demonstrates a commitment to faithfully applying the Constitution?"

I wouldn't be surprised if Mehlman's office wrote the press release with blanks, got the word from the WH, and then let it rip.

[Right Wing Professor]

Just get it right on the third try.

[indcons]

Didn't the two of you get the memo? Criticizing Mike Brown is verboten (according to some diehard Mike Brown fans on this forum) /sarcasm

[demkicker]

First of all, I resent your calling me a Bush Bot. I don't think it's cute or clever. If you knew anything about me, you'd not use that term. And yes, the Medicare spending is out of control, IMO. Vetoing bills is easier said than done, but like you, I'm frustrated that Bush hasn't drawn a line in the sand regarding spending.

Doesn't it bother you in the least that she has never held any important judicial post?

No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I find it refreshing and I'm enjoying watching the hysterical reaction of the Miers nomination by Dems, but I'm wincing over the knee jerk Republican reactions.

[humblegunner]

The end is near.

Already? Dang.

[Torie]

Most SC justices don't work very hard. Their opinions are written by clerks, and tweaked by the justices.

??????????

[strange1]

Thanks ottersnot, you've redeemed my faith in humanity.

[irishjuggler]

Demonstrably false, she donated to a pro life, pro gun Gore in the primary, not Dukakis. Also demonstrably false. In 1987-88, Al Gore ran as a pro-abortion candidate who merely opposed paying for abortions with federal funds.

From the New York Times (2/27/88):

As for Senator Gore, his stand on abortions - that no federal funds should be spent to facilitate them but that they should not be illegal - has sometimes led him into awkward positions.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?frow=0&n=10&srcht=a&query=gore+abortion&srchst=nyt&submit.x=22&submit.y=14&hdlquery=&bylquery=&daterange=period&mon1=02&day1=27&year1=1988&mon2=02&day2=27&year2=1988

[curiosity]

Well, he wasn't any more of a jurist than Meirs has been, was he?

Hey, I just looked up Jurist. You know what? It doesn't necessarily mean judge (though that's one definition). It can also mean someone who has knowledge of the law.

So by that definition, I would say, yes, Rehnquist was more of a jursit. He actually had to argue cases in front of SCOTUS as Assitant Attorney General, unlike Miers. Being an Assistant Attorney General requires more extensive knowledge of the law, especially Constitutional Law, than being White House Counsel.

So indeed, Rehnquist was more of the Jurist than Miers.

[Chena]

Did you respect the Honorable William Rehnquist? You might be surprised to know that he also did not have any "experience" as a jurist when he began his honorable service. Also, unlike some folks, I have NOT made a decision as to whether I support Ms. Miers or not. Surely an issue as important as this one deserves more than a few hours of "deliberation".

[Chena]

You obviously have an open-mind. We need more of that around here.

[gortklattu]

Well, with this pick Bush has totally disarmed most of the upcoming liberal dissent, as it is now confirmed that Meier is not a right-winger. She doesn't even have the support of freepers....eee-ghads!

I'm reading all of this and shaking my head. Bush nominated her based on what he knows about her, and possibly some discussions they've had. I'd wager that he knows more about her than any journalist, member of congress, propagandist or forum contributor. I'm puzzled by the unending parade of Chicken Littles in freeperland, because I believe they're missing the point:

A judge will judge matters. They don't have to be seeking the adulation and confirmation that all the above citizens must. They must just exercise good, constitutional judgement. If Bush wants her, there's a good reason why.

[jwh_Denver]

She hasn't contributed to a Democrat since 1994. Rush Limbaugh.

[eeriegeno]

Bush picked someone whose character he knows. Bush Sr didn't know Souter and got blindsided.

Bush surely knew that this lawyer contributed to the DNC and AlGore in 1988? Earth to GW, that same AlGore was your opponent in 2000???????

[Chena]

What side are you on?

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse on this one? Would it not be prudent to calm down and take time to let this woman speak for herself? Do you believe it is fair to jump to conclusions when we have yet to know so little about her? Oh sure, the web has been FULL, brimming to the eyeballs FULL, of rumors, speculation, and even a few facts tossed in. Liberals are fighting Liberals on this, and apparently Conservatives are fighting Conservatives on this.

IMHO, that fact alone should tell you that perhaps you shouldn't be making a decision about this woman's integrity within hours of her nomination.

[savagesusie]

I think Ann is a great pundit and I am not a guy :) . She is usually correct and has to be disappointed in this pick--not because it wasn't her --but because this one-in-a-lifetime chance to put someone like Janice Rogers Brown or Patricia Owens (who clearly earned it!!!!) on the Supreme Court was squandered. It is a shame for the US.!