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.

[nonliberal]

Not to defend Miers but it would be remiss not to note that:

John Marshall was a lawyer
Roger Taney was Secretary of the Treasury (I don't think he was ever a judge)
Earl Warren was governor of California
Rhenquist was Assistant Attorney General.

[kimmie7]

We shall see. We shall see.

She is certainly more accomplished than myself, but I was much more impressed by Roberts. I'll be educating myself about her further before I make up my mind.

I watched the Roberts "grilling" in a hit or miss manner due to scheduling conflict. I'll be recording this one.

[Owen]

Look, guy, we don't know how she will rule. We would not know how she would rule if she held a press conference right now and announced her primary goal in life was to reverse R v W.

Stevens was a clear, explicit conservative in all his writings prior to being moved to the court. You Can't Know.

So in that context, the fact that you don't have a nominee who is the equivalent of red meat Changes Nothing. Even if they were conservative red meat, they might still change. Stevens did. Souter did somewhat. O'Connor did somewhat. Some of the liberals moderated and have voted for a few conservative cases too.

You Can't Know. Even if you thought you did, you wouldn't.
So what sense does it make to think you are betrayed when you are not.

[Owen]

That's a good point above in the thread.

Victory on this nomination should be evaluated under one strict criterion:

Is this nominee more conservative than O'Connor?

Given that she is a devout Christian, apparently has some pro Life credentials and the President's knowledge of her evaluates her as a strict constitutionalist, there would seem to be no other answer but Yes.

Yes is an enormous victory.

[SirLinksalot]

<<<<
John Marshall was a lawyer
Roger Taney was Secretary of the Treasury (I don't think he was ever a judge)
Earl Warren was governor of California
Rhenquist was Assistant Attorney General.
>>>>>

Also, remember Justice Hugo Black, a famous textualist of the SCOTUS nominated by FDR in the late 1930's.

His experience as a police court judge was his only judicial experience prior to his Supreme Court appointment.
He went back into private practice in Alabama after a short stint on the that bench.

And to top it all, HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE KKK and actually DEFENDED a KKK member in court --- Lets see how a man like him would get by when nominated today.

[wardaddy]

It looks worse this morning.

[RedMonqey]

"Bush has been working with Harriett Meiers for TWELVE YEARS. He knows her, and likely learned more as she vetted the recent crop of SC potentials."

Closeness can be like viewing the world through a microscope.

She may be competent at her job and still be an "kiss $$" to what the boss wants to hear.

AKA Bill Clinton after the 86 elections.

Suddenly he's the "era of big government is over" point guy.

Ambitious people act the way they want to BE SEEN as whatever pleases the people at any given time, not as they actually are.
"I honestly believe that the main reason behind the downcast faces here is that most wanted to get into a pissing contest with the Democrats on the judiciary committee. Deep down, that's true, isn't it?" BR>

No. The top Democrats are falling over themselves in order to be first in PRAISING Ms. Miers" Doesn't that alone make your skin crawl? BR>She may well prove us dissenters wrong. I'd feel alot more comfortable if she had a proven history of conservative decisions behind her.


Only time will tell "Why is it that Bush has named tremendous candidates to the Appeals Courts, but, all of a sudden, you guys think Bush has gone soft on appointments to the highest court in the land?" Appeals courts are small potatoes compared to the SC. If so, then why appoint less qualified, less experienced Miers over the more qualified Appeals Court judges? It smacks of CRONYISM, a despicable act that erodes a society that values hard work and promotes a "Schmooser", Kiss up to the Boss attitude. Great way to run a country.(gag)

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Maybe now all the guys around here (and they are ALL guys) who think AC is such a great pundit will finally realize she's just a bimbo with some snappy patter.

Generally, I despise Ann Coulter. But she's right on the money here.

[FastCoyote]

"Like most of the bashers I've seen, they totally ignore the political realities being faced. "

Political realities like: Republicans have te senate, house AND presidency and don't have the spine to get an outstanding Supreme Court nominee? Realities like te epublicans NEVER fight like dogs on anything, so theefore never advance the philosophical position? Miers at best should have been the candidate AFTER a Luttig or Brown went down in flames, not before the fight was even joined.

[webstersII]

"she's just a bimbo with some snappy patter"

Really?

And all the while I thought she was qualified to discuss this because she has studied Constitutional Law, she started a Conservative college newspaper, she was an honors graduate, and also the editor of the Law Review at U of M.

Hmm. . . I'm sure your qualifications are higher than hers and that's why you call her a bimbo and say her opinion is worthless in this issue.

[xzins]

Thanks for your concern. Here's a link where I earlier responded to a similar question.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1496265/posts?page=69#69

[xzins]

Generally, I despise Ann Coulter. But she's right on the money here.

LOL.

Generally, I really like Ann Coulter. But she's way off base on this one.

BTW, Ann really doesn't have the legal accomplishments that even give her the right to bad-mouth a Harriet Miers who is far more accomplished in the legal world.

On the other hand, Ann is definitely more accomplished in the media/pop world than is Miers.

[mtntop3]

Anne's admirable wit often transcends reality.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

BTW, Ann really doesn't have the legal accomplishments that even give her the right to bad-mouth a Harriet Miers who is far more accomplished in the legal world.

Yes, but if "having accomplishments" was a requirement to be a bloviator/pundit, there'd be no bloviators/pundits left.

[xzins]

:>)

[El Gato]

She's as qualified as Earl Warren was when Eisenhauer appointed him

And as Rehnquist was when he was appointed to the Court. In fact her background is similar, mostly civil law practice, followed by a few years as a government lawyer, in her case White House Counsel (amoung other jobs); in his case,Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel.

[El Gato]

She's as qualified as Earl Warren was when Eisenhauer appointed him

And as Rehnquist was when he was appointed to the Court. In fact her background is similar, mostly civil law practice, followed by a few years as a government lawyer, in her case White House Counsel (among other jobs); in his case,Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel.

[Enchante]

Thanks, like you I'm not young enough to know everything!

[El Gato]

And apparently there have been a number of non-judge justices.

Something like 10 of the last 34, IIRC.

[You Dirty Rats]

BTW, Ann really doesn't have the legal accomplishments that even give her the right to bad-mouth a Harriet Miers who is far more accomplished in the legal world. On the other hand, Ann is definitely more accomplished in the media/pop world than is Miers.

Ann took a very cheap shot at Miers. Frankly, I always thought her value was overrated; she's fast becoming a liability, albeit a small one since she's not taken seriesly by too many people.