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.

[Doc Savage]

Legacy. Moderated the SC. Gave up on Education and Immigration. Gave CommuDems a pass. Killed a few terrorists from a religion he refused to condemn!

[DAC21]

I'm sure it was someone else mentioned it somewhere in these 700+ posts.

Could it be that Frist / Spector has told the President the RINOS will bail on the like of JRB?. Lets face it, we have more than 5 RINO's on board, especially the jokers from New England. Can we count of enough DEMs to put us over 50 ??

For now I'm giving the President the benefit of the doubt in that he and his staff knows what they are doing. Maybe with Miers we get a stealth JRB without the possibility of losing the vote.

[Doc Savage]

Me!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

When in doubt, resort to puerile epithets and goofy graphics.

Nice motto.

[Dane]

When in doubt, resort to puerile epithets and goofy graphics.

Just following your lead.

[Not A Snowbird]

Eerie, isn't it?

I can't watch LOTR without thinking of Carville.

[Coldwater Creek]

You would be upset if Miss Miers turns out to be a libera, but you would vote for the grandaddy of all liberals, Rudy????

[Doc Savage]

You evade the point. Should have been a 45 year old black woman or Hispanic man who had served at the Federal level, had appeared before the SC, had an unimpeachable background, and was an strict contructionist. Let the F^^^^^^ CommuDems bitch and moan all they want. We run the show now. If they were in charge they be cramming another RBGinsburg down our throats and telling us to swallow!

Not me!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I only raised the subject because her defenders cite her faith, repeatedly, as one of this nomination's strong points.

If you peremptorily dismissed the issue of her religion-which should be done in any case, since there are no religious tests for any office in the United States-then you would find defending her qualifications-if they can even be characterized as such-much more difficult.

[jwalsh07]

The Scrappleface piece was an amusing piece of satire, but it only illustrated what everyone already knows, i.e. that this woman was only chosen because she is a close friend of President Bush.

A false assertion that you can't prove. Filed in the dumper with the rest of the false assertions presented as fact.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Excuse me, but when have I ever insulted another member of this website, or any other member merely because we disagreed on a given subject?

From what I can see, the only people who are being derogatory towards other participants in this debate are coming from your side.

[andyk]

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?

What I think with regard to whether porn shops should be allowed to operate next to schools and churches has no relevancy with regard to what is constitutional. If I were to think and judge otherwise, it would be judicial activism. Did I really just have to say that?

There is no Article I Section 8 authority under the constitution for Congress to pass any such law regulating what you've suggested. If the state or local municipality wishes to do so with zoning laws or otherwise, under their state constitution, then they have every right. You see, just as important as what congress is prohibited from doing, is what congress is granted authority to do. That list is very short. Law school seems to make the list much, much longer.

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)?

Surely, if it's good enough for the President of the US, it's good enough for a SCOTUS justice. I happen to think that the authors of the constitution knew what they were doing when they created the "requirements" for SCOTUS justices. Personally, I think someone with an 8th grade education can read and understand the Constitution. Surely, it's not the founding fathers' fault that our educational standards have plummeted. But, I can say that all of those politicians, with all of those fancy law degrees have had something to do with it.

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.

Maybe if you gave me an example, I could actually respond. I happen to think that the legal wrangling that occurs, even on the same "side" of an argument, occurs as a result of the justices' legalistic backgrounds. I don't see how the fact that they're human "proves" anything.

Furthermore, it certainly seems that whatever disagreements they may have only serve to bolster my point.

[jwalsh07]

If you peremptorily dismissed the issue of her religion-which should be done in any case, since there are no religious tests for any office in the United States-then you would find defending her qualifications-if they can even be characterized as such-much more difficult

What are your qualifications to judge her qualifications? Are you a constitutional lawyer? Do you head a firm of 400 lawyers? Been named one of the top 100 lawyers in the country by National Law Review? Been the White House Counsel?

A short resume will do.

[steveegg]

The dims have to be sitting back watching us destroy from the inside.

That they are. The question is who is going to be picking up the pieces, and whether they can be reassembled before we get President Hitlery. Both the Country Club set and the conservatives seem to want total failure so that they get ultimate control.

The only good news is that the 'RATs have their own set of problems. They're capped at getting the vote from an inflated 24% of the populace (or an inflated 48% of those that actually vote in the average Presidential election), and that number is trending down as anti-vote-fraud measures make their march. They also have a small, rabid anti-America lieberal core that has abandoned them. Unlike the Pubbies and the right, the RATs have been working on embracing that left to the exclusion of everything else.

We're likely going to find out which approach works in the next 3 years. While I'm a gambling man, I'm not putting betting money on any side succeeding at this point.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Tell me then, what other outstanding characteristic recommends her for this position?

What aspect of her career outshines that of any other candidate whose name was being circulated prior to her ultimate nomination?

[NeoCaveman]

i think that's pretty obvious.

Then clue me in.

[TAdams8591]

There is nothing "STUPID" about my comment.

When her name was announced, most of us knew NOTHING at all about her. After much reading about her yesterday, last night and today, I know much more than I did yesterday, like, for instance, she received the Sandra O'Connor award for excellence, and she is far less qualified than other female candidates, for starters.

If you cannot have a civil discussion about the facts and you have to resort to using words like STUPID to describe my remarks in your first post to me, don't post to me at all.

[RinaseaofDs]

Are you being facetious?

[jwalsh07]

I'm not telling you anything until or unless you answer the question I posed. I want to know just what makes you an expert on SCOTUS nominee's qualifications.

[proud American in Canada]

but you would vote for the grandaddy of all liberals, Rudy????

Not if there were any chance he'd have a number of Supreme Court appointments to make. That was my point.

I think Rudy is a leader, could win handily against Hillary in the general election, and would be very tough in the WOT, that's why I like him.