Posted on 10/04/2005 10:39:32 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
Ann Coulter just took apart President Bush's SCOTUS nominee on the air during her appearance on the Mike Rosen show here in Denver on 850am KOA. She called for listeners to write their senators to oppose the nomination. Wish you could have heard it!
Ann said - "Totally unqualified", called Judge Roberts "a 'dream' candidate in light of this nomination", mentioned "cronyism" over and over. Much more that I'm trying to digest. I called the station to see if they saved the audio, but no luck on that. Mike Rosen was just about speechless as Ann went on and on about why this was a lousy choice.
I agree with Ann. Huge mistake and missed opportunity.
Ann's choice, Janice Rodgers-Brown. Not enough intestinal fortitude in the White House to go with that choice.
Can't wait for Ann's column on this nomination later this week.
Yes, I forgot how simple constitutional law was. Lord knows why all those silly people spend all the money and time attending law school.
Let me ask you this: using your rationale above why not nominate me. I guess I'm just as qualified as anyone. Better yet, let's nominate Laura Bush. I mean she's a woman - which seems to have been the main criterion here, and we think she'd vote the right way.
Your serve.
Ann did not bash John Roberts she bashed the fact that he was a stealth candidate we knew nothing about. I agree and Ann probably agrees he is extremely intelligent and came off well in the hearings but her point that he was a stealth candidate is still valid.
With many potential candidates with well known, rock solid views, and a majority in the senate, taking a flier was not a great move.
What a GREAT point!
It's just the Bush-Bots demanding another BOHICA-on-Faith! But nevremind making the Moderate/LIEberal (R)'s actually have to carryu some water!
I need to read more on this new SCOTUS candidate. However, I have to disagree with what you said about Ann. Just because she or anyone else does not agree with one thing that the President does is no reason to label them as "Bush Haters" and "DU trolls", etc. I don't think we should be cookie cutter Republicans. We all have opinions of our own and we can still be good Republicans because of that. Really, we should have opinions to BE good Republicans.
Yeah right, next thing you are going to say is that Ann isn't anorexic.
Wow. Only 3 posts until the obligatory "eat something Ann" post.
Of course it's okay to go for the best shot. But what if you can't get close enough for the best shot to do his stuff. You go with what you can. All I am saying is that Ms. Miers is no wet-behind-the-ears spring chicken just out of law school and her experience might be a better asset than some other candidate's years of judicial experience if that candidate has been shielded from most real-world experiences.
I'm sorry you don't like the choice but I think you ought to at least wait for the hearings to make your judgment that she isn't the best choice.
Perhaps a little of both, it would explain quite a bit ;)
Which proves my point, she's an idiot.
I just have this image of Rice, at Bush's behest of course, holding the state of Israel by the back of the neck and forcing their face underwater (or worse in the pali lap) to force them to give up land in order to appear "fair" to those who have never had any interest in appearing "fair", only in what they could get out of the jews, "the better to kill you with, my dear."
And I have this same sense of we, in our own country, being forced to stand with our hands up, at gunpoint, while the vandals invade us up the soft underbelly and raid the liquor cabinet, denied even the opportunity to say anything publicly about it without a firestorm of criticizm like hot coals heaped upon our heads. That kind of un-PC public statement is a firing offense in this country... we have to be careful. Later it will be a different kind of firing.
I don't really care. I can't let my heart bleed too much. We are at war, and war is a horrible thing so when the next skyscraper tumbles or neighborhood gets knocked down or whatever, tough, the people can wake up or not, if that one doesn't do it the following one will.
Sure, the govt will promise a quarter trill, but when the disasters start coming on the heels of disaster, they'll promise, but they just won't pay. Hmmm... THAT's probably when we'll see some changes. When the welfare state stops paying out.
"Maybe you should tell them, huh?"
I just did, Howl!
Ed
All of them vetted by Ms. Miers herself. Keep posting. You're making yourself look foolish with each subsequent post.
No, I am not nuts. From what I understand, she has been involved in corporate law and law firm management in Texas, as well as being president of the Texas bar. She has served on a city council (or was it a county council?). She has been involved in local and national politics. How many other justices have that experience? Believe it or not, it may take more intestinal fortitude to stand up for herself in those venues than the insular academic and judicial worlds where liberalism is the norm.
You can tell whose ox is being gored by where the "eat something" post is in relation to the required pic (post 3 for the "eat something", post 25 for the pic).
I keep reading how some of you are defending this pick for SCJ based on the fact that "Bush likes her." I don't see anyone putting down her accomplishments or anything else really noteworthy.
So why is this a good pick?
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.