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.
Well put.
I agree that if she is flyweight, she should be jettisoned. But I'd be happy with a light heavy originalist as a counterweight to Ivy League elitism.
Just curious, have the good conservatives of Alaska like yourself also emailed Stevens and Murkowski to express your outrage at the federal government paying $300,000 to paint an Alaskan Airlines jet like a salmon? Outrage that the fed government is paying $29 million to 'promote' Alaskan salmon? Outrage that the fed government will pay $220+ million to build a bridge to an island of 50 persons, when Alaska clearly has the money to pay for it without gov't pork/welfare (since the state sends residents royalty checks every year)?
If she does well at the hearings, that will indicate she is a quick study, with the mental capacity to handle complexity. The only legitimate reason to oppose her, would be because she is mediocore. The ideological bit won't round up any or very few votes in the Senate.
So that's the benchmark now? If you're a managing partner at a good sized regional law firm, you can expect to be a shoe-in for the Supreme Court? She has no judicial experience, which wouldn't necessarily be a killer if her resume were stellar elsewhere. Roberts, for example, had only very limited judicial experience, but no one doubted his understanding of the Constitution, given his long and distinguished history of arguing cases before the Supreme Court. What has Miers done? She's a graduate of a second-tier law school (being charitable here) who rose up through the ranks to manage a second-tier law firm. She's written nothing. She's Bush's lawyer and she goes to church and she ran the Texas Lottery unremarkably for a couple of years. Other than that, she seems to have nothing to recommend her.
I agree completely. I have posted that ad nauseum. Don't you read my posts? :) Right now all we have is speculation, and wild ass predictions, which is a fun game, but not a basis for a decision when more data points will come in later.
G-d forbid, but I wish the nomination was not for someone who donated to both Gore's and Clinton's campaign. I don't understand the need for Republicans who go to Washington to be too nice to Demodrats.
Wrong thread pal, I believe the "bash Alaska" one was a few weeks ago.
Find a state w/out Federal pork, then post about that ok?
I am angrier right now than I have ever been at Bush. Like an earlier poster said, this nomination is a kick in the teeth for movement conservatives, especially those in the legal community. I'm so disgusted I can barely verbalize it. Seriously.
"“It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong,” Gore wrote to a constituent in 1984 when he was representing Tennessee in the House. “Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I have an open mind about how to further this goal.” When asked whether he still believed what he wrote in a separate 1987 letter to a constituent, that abortion is “the taking of a human life,” Gore responded, “I didn’t write that. I used the word ‘arguably’” before the words “the taking of a human life,” he said. “ I would not use that phrasing today,” he added. Gore is half right. In another letter from 1984, Gore indeed said abortion was “arguably the taking of a human life.” But Gore continued, “It is my deep personal belief that abortion is wrong. I hope some day we will see the. outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply.” Source: Boston Globe, p. A30 Jan 30, 2000
In 1992 on the David Frost Show, Gore said he still regarded abortion as the taking of “innocent human life” but conceded that he no longer used such phrases in letters because they are “so loaded with political charge.” He added, “I think many of us have mixed feelings, because there are two questions involved. The first question is how you feel about an abortion in a given set of circumstances. And the second question is, who makes the decision? And regardless of how you and I might feel about the rightness or wrongness of a given decision in a particular set of circumstances, I believe the government ought not to have the right to order a woman to accept its judgment about how to weigh the different aspects of the decision, and order the woman to make the decision that government says she has to make, instead of leaving the decision to her. I’ve always believed that. Source: Inventing Al Gore, p.122 Mar 3, 2000
Well actually I don't agree with that much, because I think the term "originalism" has become a buzz phrase that many folks suffuse with a content that is not there in practice. The Constitution is not that precise. The words are not that precise. The intent is often not that precise. The intent as to whether the words should have a fixed meaning, or a meaning given to them with each generation, is often not really known.
What does "cruel and unusual" mean? What was the intent as to what it should mean? What was cruel and unusual then, or what is deemed cruel and unusual by each generation's sensibilities? While originalism is a tool, it is but one tool. For example, I am now presuaded that nobody has a clue exactly and precisely what the intent of the founders was as to the second amendment. They may not have known either, or thought about it much.
Scalia is indeed an effective salesman. That does not mean he is totally right, or totally candid about the limits of the doctrine. I would love to debate the man, after taking about 6 months off to get ready for him. :)
Your points are strong. In addition to her age and the administration's unwillingness to challenge the Senate leftists on constitutional principles, it's also a shame to see so many clearly qualified names such as Brown, Jones, and Luttig passed over. The fact that those names were on Schumer's list of unacceptable nominees should have been a plus for them. Instead, it was a minus as the President seemingly doesn't want to fight Schumer, which is bizarre given that Schumer & his ilk on the Judiciary Committee aren't all that bright and would be easily rolled in a public opinion battle against a conservative.
Don't be. The President knows this person. Ann Coulter don't. And no worry because he isn't running again...Naw naw na na naw!
((Sarcasm)). This is basically what I was told earlier. If you can believe it.
You're criticizing Bush for appearing impure, looking bad, and cronyism, aka the ugly side of politics. I'm thinking that such criticism is a bit odd coming from a state well-known for its massive and incomparable appetite for pork (every other structure is the "Ted Stevens Memorial..."), which, beyond being in theory incompatible with conservatism, appears impure, looks bad, and is the ugly side of politics.
Don't let "appearances" get in the way of whether or not you should support this woman. I certainly wouldn't. If President Bush had nominated a well-known, ultra Conservative JUDGE, who had prior experience, AND a record to show, I highly doubt he/she would be nominated. I think there is more to this nomination than meets the eye.
My best advice would be, forget the Liberals around you. What they think or what they say should not matter to you at all. It is what YOU believe that counts. I want to give this woman a chance and learn far more about her than the personal antidotes of FReepers or any one else for that matter. It's all about gathering facts and then hearing this woman speak for herself.
I'm not a "know-all-ogist", I'm just someone who prefers to study these issues with an open-mind. I do appreciate your post, nerdgirl. :)
Mediocre. Like most of the justices who have sat on the court?
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.