Ann Coulter just took apart SCOTUS nominee on the Mike Rosen show (My report)

Ann Coulter's appearance on the Mike Rosen show, 850am KOA ^ | This morning, Mon. Oct. 4th | Report from Mike Rosen show

[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.

[Dane]

How does the support of(bill krystol)-or opposition to, for that matter-a particular Republican candidate that ran in a presidential primary five years(ago, mccain) negate the validity of his argument?

JMO, the fact that both bill krystol and mark levin were both using the same talking point yesterday(Bush flinched) says volumes to me(i.e there are elitists on both sides of the aisle).

[gov_bean_ counter]

People on this forum want to talk about Bush's fight. This is not Bush's fight. It is Meir's fight just like it would have been Ms. Brown, etals fight. We aren't at all sure any of the recently approved appellate judges wanted to go another round.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Mark Levin's comments were posted before William Kristol's, as he explained on his WABC show yesterday, so the idea that he was somehow cribbing from Kristol's notes is preposterous.

[decal]

If I want to hear a termagant whine I'll go to the mall the day after Thanksgiving, thank you very much.

[unseen]

100% agree. If the president asked joe blow to read the consitution the second admentment and joe blow says this means the government can not take our guns. He should nominate Joe Blow. The Consitution is not rocket science folks. It means what it says and says what it means. It limits government. Period.

[Mo1]

Surely you jest.
"We don't know anything about her" is a much better reason than "Just trust me."

The President hasn't given me any reason to think he would pick a liberal judge for the bench

So I will trust .. but I will also verify

That is what the confirmation hearings are about

To find out what kind of Judge she might or might not be

[txrangerette]

Read it again, TomGuy. Yes, I am calling you out by NAME.

I said that Reid said he is FOR her, therefore FReepers were stupidly concluding that she must be bad.

I SAID NOTHING ABOUT REID SAYING SHE WAS BAD

Please, be fair, accurate, and don't distort.

Reid does not actually, truly agree with and believe in Harriet Miers.

A shame that some have fallen for his trick in his pretending to agree with her in order to cause us to divide and destroy ourselves from within.

[NCLaw441]

Nor does it disqualify her.

[xsmommy]

i think that's pretty obvious.

[unseen]

Stupid nonsense? Bush renominated those judges after the election. He nominated this one after Katrina. Negative poll numbers makes some people lose their principles it would seem.

[Dane]

Mark Levin's comments were posted before William Kristol's, as he explained on his WABC show yesterday, so the idea that he was somehow cribbing from Kristol's notes is preposterous

Hmm, like I should think that "gravitas" being repeated again and again back in 2000, by the liberal media in that case, was just a coinkydink.

You all in NYC think we all in "flyover" country are a bunch oif dumb rubes, the same you probably think of Harriet Meirs, IMO.

[sola_fide]

No, I (nor I presume you)do not need a judge to tell me what the words of the Constitution say. I can read. It's applying what is written to the specifics of a given case that causes difficulty. The "Congress shall make no law..." bit you quote is an excellent example. Do you think porn shops should be allowed to operate next to schools and churches? I doubt it. Well, that kind of goes against the clear words "Congress shall make no law..." now doesn't it? And most cases before the court are FAR more complicated than the example I just gave.

So, what are your qualifications for a SC justice? Anyone who can read at an 11th or 12th grade level (the approximate level at which the Constitution is written)? BTW, you do know that Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist sometimes disagreed with each other don't you? How do you explain this? I think that proves there is a little more to it (being a SC justice) than simply being able to read and understand the constitution.

[cyncooper]

Her point was that there are millions of good, Pentecostal Christians who would have been preferable to Ms. Miers.

That sounds odd. Why would these millions of good Christians have been preferable to Ms. Miers?

[daviscupper]

With all do respect I have to disagree with you. Dubya should not have nominated stealth candidate just to please Democrats and RINOS. Conservatives worked very hard to get Dubya elected because we believed that among other things he would nominate a conservative justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas -- not because we thought he would nominate a stealth candidate who might turn out to be a Scalia or a Warren!!

Republicans won the Presidency, the House, the Senate, a majority of the State legislatures and Governorships and Bush can't get his judges seated. The DemoRats filibustered numerous conservative judges for four years and have forced Dubya to nominate Harry Reid's candidate. That is pretty hard to understand? It makes a lot of us pretty darn upset.

Why do Republicans like Bush just cave-in? Did you see DemoRats worry about nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg? No, they even talked Republicans into voting for her -- Something like 98-2. Why can't we demand the same type of compliance when we win elections? Why do Republicans give up so easily?

[txrangerette]

You are grasping at straws just to attack the President. You have nothing, nothing, on which to base your wild claims.

[general_re]

A litigator is someone who argues cases in court, something Miers never has done.

Gosh, you'd think the object of your derision might inspire you to do a little homework - "She went on to become a top commercial litigator whose clients included Microsoft and the Walt Disney Co."

When was the last time Annie set foot in a courtroom? Does she find much time between book signings? Or are appearances at Barnes & Noble how you sharpen your constitutional law skills these days?

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Yeah, that must be it!.

[MikefromOhio]

LOL

[Coldwater Creek]

Hush your mouth!!!!!!!!1

[gathersnomoss]

WTF, liberals get what they want. Why do Pubes go down so quickly? How do they get rid of that lingering taste and continue to do the same over and over again? Are they trying another method of birth control and not even getting dinner?

Unbelievable man!