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.
"Let's move the court a little more to the right each time. We can call it fabian conservatism."
And what you end up with is Tony Blair socialism. Stand for mediocrity, don't be surprised if that is what you leave your children..
She actually took on the lions, tigers and bears of the Left, fearlessly...and without an iota of quivering political correctness. Unlike Ms. Mier.
Harriet actually met a payroll.
With someone ELSE's earnings.
Most obviously, Miers is a Christian conservative. She also has "been there, done that" in the real world and thus would bring a new and much needed perspective to the court. She has also vetted this administration's nominations to the various courts so she knows the goal and the criteria and the players.
Very significantly, people who have known her for decades, endorse her. This President who rarely makes a mistake in sizing up a member of his team that he personally chooses, trusts her.
I know a little of Coulter's background. I believe she has devolved into a caricature rightwing MSM. Sadly she is not alone in displaying the same kneejerk reactions that we have come to despise among the left.
Blind loyalty at its best.
Thank you for sharing your views of Ann Coulter! Truly, I wish we could get "our side" to reconsider the practice of eating our own.
Unfortunately there are a lot of folks who would like to see a justice issue rulings based on the bible rather than the constitution.
Quit worshipping lawyers. The constitition isn't a mystery and it's written in English.
Your belief that only lawyers can understand and interpret the law is what keeps them in control and sucking ever more of our freedom away while aquiring more power to themselves.
You notice the framers of the constitution, the supreme law as you call it, didn't worship lawyers and didn't make it a requirement when they wrote that supreme law.
Quit worshipping lawyers. The constitition isn't a mystery and it's written in English.
Your belief that only lawyers can understand and interpret the law is what keeps them in control and sucking ever more of our freedom away while aquiring more power to themselves.
You notice the framers of the constitution, the supreme law as you call it, didn't worship lawyers and didn't make it a requirement when they wrote that supreme law.
My original comment wasn't about Ms. Miers, but about Ms. Coulter desire to maintain the fiction that one must be a lawyer (and super duper legal beagle at that) in order to serve on SCOTUS.
There are many fine citizens who could serve, not just Harriet Miers and by continuing to appoint lawyers and only lawyers to the courts we have put the foxes in charge of the hen house.
Zell Miller was a democrat once too, as was Ronald Reagan and most of citizens of the southern states as well at one time.
Did you know Mary Magdelene was a whore once? And the Apostle Paul persecuted Christians to their death? People change, the world changes. Only the truth remains unchanged.
I will withhold judgement on Ms Miers until I have had time to actually study her previous work and writing.
The Constitution was written on the moral principles found in the Bible as were the basis most of our earlier civil & criminal laws actually. Did the founder do this intentionally? What did they say? Jefferson called the Bible the cornerstone For American liberty. James Madison said, "We've staked our future on our ability to follow The Ten Commandments" with all our heart"
In short you can not have justice nor freedom outside of the boundaries of The Bible and expect to survive as a nation. History shows as much.
Yep! I'm the meanest mom in the hood.
Maybe some of us guys have liked Ann Coulter for her intellect and her stones all along? So what, if some freepers get a little carried away with "posting rules" on Ann Coulter threads?
Are you aware that George Will has written a similarly critical piece on Miers? Will thread
Are you capable of disagreeing with Ms. Coulter without attacking her personally, or are you the real bimbo?
I want judges who rule based on the constitution, not on the bible. For example, take the current case of Oregon's assisted suicide law. Based on the constitution, this isn't a federal matter and the correct ruling is that this is a state issue.
However, suicide is morally wrong and violates the teachings of the Bible.
So, while I personally oppose such a law, I can find nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to block the state of Oregon from enacting a doctor assisted suicide law. For the Supreme Court to rule that the Oregon law is unconstitutional would be a clear act of judicial activism. Our constitution was written to leave such issues to the states.
The legalization of assisted suicide is just what the ones who now have two thirds of our laws on all levels of government written for their loss prevention want. Tell me would you prefer to have the means to simply on your own free will swallow pills and end your life legal or not because it would not matter anyway, or would you instead prefer to open a Pandora's Box so that such thugs as your health insurance provider can decide your appointed time for you. Be very careful what you ask for.
Suicide has been around ever since has it not. Making it legal serves no purpose except to open the door for government to regulate it then life will be rationed by the government owned by the Insurance Companies and then GOD help us all.
That is where wise judges come in. Suicide for the preservation of life & liberty should not be made legal period assisted or otherwise. If someone wants to off them self they will do so. In the mean time it is of the up most importance to make certain government never gets to allow it.
Dd you know that actually it was never intended for man to even have judges as such? It was intended for man instead to do what was right in the eyes of GOD. Man demanded Judges to preside over their lives and the results have been a failure as they are open to corruption.
The founding fathers who signed the Constitution 52 of 55 were active church members. So did they intend for our government to be influenced by Judeo/Christian beliefs? All evidence points to yes. It is for example not a Constitutional requirement for a POTUS being sworn in to place his hand on the Bible. Yet Washington would not take such an oath without it. One POTUS refused taking oath on Sunday. Up till the 1980's there were laws in many states based on Biblical ideals that prohibited such things as most businesses open on Sunday.
When I left Virginia after active duty in late 1980 that law had still not been repealed. Those laws were based on the Bible and such laws have been law in many cases since ones like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, etc were POTUS. I can think of only one of the Ten Commandments that was never law. You shall have no other gods before me. The rest have been on the books since 1776. I can remember even when the taking of another mans wife was a criminal offense.
So then would a USSC Judge be right in upholding a prohibition on suicide? Yes. Why? Because it has been understood that the right to life is a right upon which this nation was built. Anyone can off them self of their own free will. Even the Lord won't stop you as in the case of Judas. Like it or not though the laws of this nation were in fact founded on the Bible and the laws there in as the guide.
The founders never intended to keep church out of government as they included their beliefs even into public office. They however would never allow government to take over the church which is what they feared most. Too bad our POTUS and many in congress are not as wise and wish to entangle the pulpit into such dangerous areas of church control as Faith Based government funded programs which the church should avoid at all cost and the FEDERAL government is prohibited from doing. If a state wishes to give a dollar to such that is another matter. The prohibition addresses congress only.
For some insight as to just what the founders believed in relation of their religious convictions to their elected office the book "The Light and the Glory" shows it well. The book is well researched and the public and private notes and letters of the founders are in that book. They never separated their Christian beliefs from their offices. No not even first Chief Justice John Jay. George Washington said, "You can't have national morality apart from religious principle,"
And again I'll ask you, cite me the specific clause in the US Constitution that gives the fedearl government the authority to override Oregon's assisted suicide law.
What you are advocating is judicial activism, making decisions based on your view of right and wrong rather than what is written in the law. This is exactly the same kind of logic that justices such as Warren, Berger, and Ginsburg use in their opinions.
Again, I want judges that excercise judicial restraint, are originalist, and who make their decisions based on the letter of the law, not on their own personal views of right and wrong. That is why I voted for George W. Bush.
When such a dreaded act is legalized on any level of government the lives of all free people are then in danger. You would do well to find out just who actually is behind such an insane notion as assisted suicide and why. Again I say currently over two thirds of our federal, state, and local laws are now written for the specific purpose of controlling profit loss for one monetary special interest group namely the insurance companies.
As it stands right now you, I, or the person next door has the ability to end our life of our own act. Yet for some reason you want governemnt to give it's stamp of approval to the act as well? The federal courts would have an interest in preserving life especially when laws support ending life extend beyond the scope of Capitol Punishment. The very fact that this issue must be debated at all shows a deep sickness of our nations people and I'm not talking about a physical one.
I think this is the best answer and I take it from The Constitution Party Platform so it's not my words by rather I'm stating the source "The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body." In other words my right to live or die should not be dependent upon the federal, state, or local government. Any of the three wishing to do such would be in violation of my civil rights and as such an interest to the USSC and their duty to defend my life.
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.