Ann Coulter: Miers a 'Complete Mediocrity'

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:

The nation went to war with the crown over the right of life. The USSC judge you seek does not exist never has never will. All are biased and will rule accordingly. I prefer one who would rule in favor of life based on the same religous principle of the founders. And again I must point out to you suicide is an act of self. Assisted suicide is an act of murder. Again be careful what you ask for.

I'm going to ask you again, what clause in the constitution gives the federal government the ability to override the Oregon Assisted Suicide law?

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.

Here's what I like so much about Judge Roberts. What you are saying I agree with, however it's up to the legislature and the people to enact laws that implement the view you so correctly state. It's not up to the courts to legislate from the bench.

Yes, we ought to have constitutional amendments that outlaw abortion, and perhaps even doctor assisted suicide. Absent those amendments, those issues are to be reserved to the states. I would vehemently oppose a Supreme Court ruling that outlawed abortion since there is no federal authority for governing abortion (which is why Roe vs. Wade was such a terrible decision). I would wholeheartedly support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

As I noted earlier, I'm in favor of what President Bush has called for, judges who strictly interpret the constitution and do not legislate from the bench. Activist judges are wrong, no matter what their view.

. Yet for some reason you want governemnt to give it's stamp of approval to the act as well?

Let me clarify, there is no federal authority for overturning Oregon's law. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to have any control over what the people of Oregon decide in this matter.

I want this matter to be left to the states, I want the U.S. Constitution to be followed.

And for the record, I oppose Oregon's law, but I don't live in Oregon. If we aren't a nation of laws, governed by a Constitution, then what are we?

Yes, I agree on the Democrat conversion part. But a Democrat praising Bush's pick is not good. Not good at all. I still think we need lawyers. Why? Well we need lawyers and/or those understand law on the bench. Think about it. Lawyers sit down and deal with law that revolves around Constitution all the time.

How many people out there know and understand the relation of the 14th Amend. to the States and how Liberals use it to ban prayer in schools via the 1st Amend? Not too many. There is an entire legal process that those outside of law do not understand. I am not a lawyer though I have studied government and am still doing it today. I can tell you that from what I know is that we need an astute judge on the bench who really understands what they are doing. Someone who knows the laws and how to operate it should be on the bench. A person of principle and who has one agenda and that is to govern by the Constitution and not to legislate or add unto it.

Most importantly these people are judges. They are on the 'HIGHEST COURT' in the land. You don't want someone who doesn't understand law on the bench. Maybe Miers isn't as bad as we think. But I would have preferred that Bush had selected someone with a better background and a known Originalist, even if that means the Democrats bloody them. Its better than playing softball. To say the least Bush has failed the Conservative movement on numerous occasions and this is only one more let down that he has made. Of course maybe you're only Socially Conservative. I mean that is the trend today isn't it? Maybe you're not. But true Conservatives know and understand that the Constitution is what makes this land and government great. When will the GOP wake up and seal our borders off, deport all illegals, and go back to governing how the Constitution should be interpreted? That is a question that I as well as others would like to know. Bush needs to quit playing nice and playing touch football with the Democrats and start acting like he has a pair.

I want this matter to be left to the states, I want the U.S. Constitution to be followed.

Well then slavery shouldn't have bothered you at all. There was no Constitutional prohibition against it. And when states tried to withdrawl from the union over states rigts {which I do support} a war was fought.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the final court of appeals. If they see assisted suicide as being a direct violation of a persons right to life then yes they can act. Good grief even a convicted murderer get's as much from them do they not? State law convicts them and the USSC if the case gets that far makes certain the sentence was justifable. USSC is part of checks and balance. I prefer judges who rule on the side of life. LIFE is the foundation of our nation. LIke I said no one can stop anyone from offing themselves. But to ask another to help you or do it for you is wrong. Be careful what you ask for you may get it.

What you are advocating is judicial activism. Sorry, as a Conservative who supports a strict constructionalist view of the role of the courts, I must respectfully disagree with your view. And I would say that your view is out of line with the President, and his recent court nominees (well, at least Judge Roberts.

I think at this point we can agree to disagree, thank you for the pleasant discourse. You might want to visit http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497183/posts?page=6#6 and note how most of the posts in that thread are in favor of a court ruling which leaves such matters to the states.

Ok but think about this for a moment and I think you'll understand why I have said what I did. The right to secede from the Union is it actually in the Constitustion? Yet it is the most basic of rights next to life itself our founders based our very nation on. IF the government fails the Constitution and ideals as set forth in the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution then they left us with the way to resolve it by desolving that very union.

Lincoln didn't see it that way nor did the courts for that matter. But as stated in the Declaration of Independence certain rights are given by the CREATOR and not by government and as such government has no right to take it away except in cases of trial by jury in criminal cases. Assisted suicide is not a right that can be given by anyone. No state by the founders intent can legalize murder of another human being. IOW only through Capitol Punishment upon conviction.

Government in the Constitution is given no powers of controlling life and death but I will tell you this much. IF states are allowed to allow killing, murder, suicides, or such who then pray tell me has the authority to stop them? Where is the line drawn as to what justifies killing someone for any reason? A prohibition to the states as such is not in the Constitution either as the laws on cases they hear apply only to federal laws then right? Either the USSC has say over state laws being legal, moral, and Constitutional or they don't. But the right answer is the Congress and not the USSC has final say in all matters related to the USSC.

Of course we haven't gotten to the point of discussion where assisted suicide goes against all established medical ethics and a doctors very oath to give care. Again who is behind this bill to legalize this? The ones who stand to profit the most from it. The murder in Florida of an innocent lady approved by the state opened the Pandora's Box. This is the result. Satan himself laughs in delight over it and fools support it.

No, it did bother me, but the correction should occur in the legislature, not in the courts. Courts shouldn't legislate, simple as that.

Somewhere in this thread I addressed that. Actually people think too much about POTUS and USSC when they actually are not the problem but rather a symptom of it. The problem since the concept and approval of the Great Society was and still is Congress. If congress works right you can put an ape in the Whitehouse and USSC and government still should function in a Constitutional manner. Because of the failures of congress it hasn't.

Agreed, but I'd rather see people take responsibility for those whom they elect, rather than rely on activist judges to straighten things out.

When it comes right down to it all that holds this nation together is the moral conscience of the total sum of citizens. By that I'm not specifically using a religious context but rather they know what is right and wrong and willfully choose accordingly. In some shape or form all judges either answer to the conscience which if they do as much usually at least produces good results, or others ignore it and seek to manipulate the citizens for monetary gain and illicit power to enslave us with it.

Any judge on any bench must use common sense when applying an opinion of the court upon the public. Far too many judges ignore the founders beliefs and principles they incorporated into their private and public lives. The results being some of the most damaging rulings this nation has known since it began.

I rather see honest mistakes made by honest judges doing what they see is in the spirit of the founders recorded intent than the mayhem that has prevailed when they haven't. No judge is beyond personal prejudice so the best you can hope for is to learn what those actually are and if those prejudices will produce tyranny.

Two judges can say what they believe the Second Amendment actually means for example. The words as written and word master Noah Webster signed to mean mean just what they say. But I can also read their records and letters and know beyond a reasonable doubt an armed public is the vanguard against tyranny. Both sides or the issue will swear they are following the Constitution. Therefore you must look at the appointed judges history to understand their leanings.

You will find that many Liberals will refer to judges who are pro-gun ownership as activist judges. Actually both political parties are far to liberal for my liking. Neither Dems nor GOP is a bit interested in following the Constitution as a party platform & policy. It shows in their voting records. Well I better get out of here before I get the boot.... again :>}

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.