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.

[GoldCountryRedneck]

Well....Rules are Rules ....soooo

[msnimje]

Two simple questions:

If Miers did not work for Bush, would she ever have been considered for this (or any judicial) position?

Would any other Republican President put her on the list of potential Supreme Court nominees?

[ecurbh]

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.

She's a shrill unlikable anorexic harpie.

[Chena]

How refreshing to find someone who isn't drooling at the feet of Ms. Coulter! I agree with you completely. I think she has said many intelligent things in the past, but I don't think she "knows everything" nor do I think she is infallible. And, I might add, she's not young enough to know everything (see my tagline). LOL

[Al Simmons]

"The point is, Warren had no prior experience as a judge either. In that sense they are equally qualified.

What obscure point are you trying to make? Do you even know?"

If that's what you meant that that's what you should have said.

The point is that Warren had PLENTY of 'record' on various issues because he had been a public figure, and Governor of California, one of our largest states. OK, he changed on some of them, but at least he wasn't a cipher.

[MadIvan]

Did the DUmmies put something in the water over the weekend? What's with all the defeatism around here today?

It's not defeatism. It's disappointment. This was a missed opportunity.

Regards, Ivan

[sinkspur]

We were sort of kidding about AC as SCJ but her qualifications put this lady to shame in terms of constitutional law and her experience at the Court.

What experience has Ann Coulter had at the Supreme Court?

[onyx]

He's opined on several occasions that his nominee would not have to be a sitting judge.

[phatoldphart]

>but "just trust me" is not an argument worthy of support.

Eddie Murphy, Beverly Hills Cop 198?

[dts32041]

81 posts in Admin moderator ban all before the 81st post if they can't abide by the rules.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Weird, ain't it?

And if you're really living in Boston, you have my sympathies. Wisconsin is right behind you in "Blue Representation." :(

[Chena]

You do realize there is no Constitutional requirement that a nominee even be a lawyer. Bush picked someone whose character he knows. Bush Sr didn't know Souter and got blindsided.

Nor is there a requirement that a nominee must have judicial experience. The Honorable Judge Rehnquist was a perfect example of that fact.

[dts32041]

Because being a christian and a conservative doesn't often mean the same thing.

[jwalsh07]

The point is that Warren had PLENTY of 'record' on various issues because he had been a public figure, and Governor of California, one of our largest states. OK, he changed on some of them, but at least he wasn't a cipher.

LOL!

[LibWhacker]

I'm glad Dubya didn't nominate Ann. I would've missed her articles.

As to the question of whether or not Miers is a mediocrity, at this point I'm willing to say, who cares? As long as she's staunchly conservative, I can live with it.

I've gotta believe Dubya thinks she is staunchly conservative and that ultimately this stealth appointment will be seen as one of his masterstrokes.

After all, the 1% of the highly qualified academic types who aren't brainwashed libs are radioactive and don't stand a chance of being confirmed, given all the RINOs in the Senate. This might be the only way to get a strong conservative on the Court.

Hope I'm not fooling myself! :-)

[EQAndyBuzz]

I am confused here. What is the role of a Supreme Court Justice?

It is to interpret the Constitution. Period. No politics, no activism, no self importance.

The question is, can she do this? Because if you are all hoping that she will be an activist for the right, than you are no better than the activists on the left.

[Non-Sequitur]

He's opined on several occasions that his nominee would not have to be a sitting judge.

And his head of FEMA need not have any disaster management experience...and his head of woman's issues at the FDA need not be a medical doctor...and his head of immigration enforcement need not have any law enforcement experience...and on and on and on.

[JCEccles]

All you have to do is read and learn the constitution and follow the law.

By the time you can do that and do it competently, quickly, persuasively, and consistently within a huge body of established precedent while hewing to often arcane judicial rules you are, by practice and definition, a lawyer.

[Paul Ross]

How devout can Miers be if she is busy throwing money at the DNC, and AL Gore?

I think we need to realize that something really is rotten here. Even if she was Karen Hughes...giving BIG DOUGH to the DNC would be a show-stopper for any intelligent jurisprudential conservative. And GWB must know he has laid an egg. The desperation with which he VEERS LEFT after his imploded popularity should tell us all we need to know about his gut instincts.

[Al Simmons]

"He's opined on several occasions that his nominee would not have to be a sitting judge."

I agree. I would have nominated Thomas Sowell myself. But Miers? I sure hope that this woman is a (closet) fascist, but fear that something more akin to the exact opposite is the case (SARCASM ALERT!!!!!!!!!!)