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.
(Doh!!) Anne Coulter (Doh!!) is too young to remember the good old days when Harriet was young.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/LegalEd/legaled11c.htm
Likewise, in 1964, Erwin Griswold of Harvard Law School assured students and alumni, "[T]here could never be a great influx of women into the school ... because the policy was never to give any man's place to a woman."This institutionalized policy of male privilege was also reflected in the Harvard Special Summer Program, the first significant affirmative action outreach program in legal education designed to encourage African Americans in the South to apply to law school.
In 1966, Harvard's assistant dean coolly remarked that "women suffered heavily when selections were made" regarding admission into the program because admitting a substantial proportion of women made no sense in light of the "relatively low proportion of women" at Harvard and other law schools.
In 1968, ten ABA-accredited law schools, including Notre Dame, still had zero female students. Other schools in the mid-1960s, like Columbia, placed ceilings on the number of women who could enroll.
Orin Hatch totally, totally disagrees with Ginsburg. Never made any bones about it. Harry Reid is causing FReepers to make the most astoundingly stupid conclusion that he must agree with Harriet Miers therefore she is bad. He doesn't agree with her judicial philosophy one whit. Further, he is goading some of us into trying to destroy ourselves from within. In too many cases, looks like his trick is working.
I just think Ann Coulter is way out of line on this, she is hyper and does not seem to want to give Miers a chance or even trust W enough to think he did the right thing. She thinks SMU is a nothing law school. She has really pissed me off for the last time.
I understand your point
But two wrongs don't make a right
It is relevant, because she herself is trying to denigrate the judicial nominee pick, based on side-by-side comparisons of their respective resumes.
>What about nearly every single conservative legal scholar of distinction and/or respected conseverative commentator across the board?<
Name the legal Scholars.Conservative Commentators have no more credibility than any other entertainer.They have a vested intrest in a fight.Follow the money.
Anne's too young to remember that women had a harder time getting into some law schools when Harriet was a young woman.
Garsk!
Who could possibly find even a glimmer of humor in what is shaping up to be the single worst Supreme Court selection to come down the pike in recent memory?
No, it's not. Coulter sees the nominee at age 60 and realizes she is not far from that herself. She could look like Keith Richards by the time she gets there. Hopefully she will still be able to go on tour and rock.
Or Mark Levin?
Or L. Brent Bozell, whose father was the chief intellectual collaborator with William F. Buckley Jr, the father of the modern conservative movement in America?
What about Ramesh Ponnuru?
What about nearly every single conservative legal scholar of distinction and/or respected conseverative commentator across the board?
You mean "elitist rock star conservatives".
LOL, Mark Levin got mad at me on FR for my pointing out he was using the same talking points as mccain supporter, bill krystol.
They were both on the same page(ala when the democrats are on the attack) using the phrase "Bush flinched".
An elitist, is an elitist, is an elitist.
I did not hear the dialogue. If Ann actually claimed that Miers is a poor nominee because, "I'm better than her," then you are correct. If Ann merely claimed that Miers is a poor nominee because, "She's not good enough for the court," then I'm correct.
Ann needs to put on a dress (cover those skinny legs) and run for president. Then if elected, she can pick a nominee to the supreme court that pleases her.
Nah, Ann is from Connecticut. Hardly I would call "the south", unless I lived in Massachusetts or New Hampshire. ;)
Ms. Miers had a distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc. Moreover, when she left her law firm of Locke, Liddell & Sapp, Ms. Miers was serving as Co-Managing Partner of the firm which had more than 400 lawyers.
Corporate law, never been on the bench, and was a demonrat in the '80s. She is definitely not the best athlete available.
They liked her better when she only criticized Democrats....
How does the support of-or opposition to, for that matter-a particular Republican candidate that ran in a presidential primary five years negate the validity of his argument?
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.