Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This is what 'advice and consent' means (Ann Coulter)
wnd.com ^ | October 5, 2005 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 10/05/2005 4:03:47 PM PDT by perfect stranger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,041-1,0601,061-1,0801,081-1,1001,101-1,117 next last
To: Fawn
"and your comment "when Bush was still boozing it up" is an attack that was immature and unwarranted."

I'm sure you'd think it was funny if it was directed at Ted Kennedy and not W. Admit it, you've "fallen in love with a celebrity" as another FReeper said.

1,061 posted on 10/06/2005 9:43:05 AM PDT by subterfuge (Obama, mo mama...er Osama-La bamba, uh, bama...banana rama...URP!---Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1050 | View Replies]

To: Fawn
"No---that's not clear. He picked her because he has trust in her and has said that she was the most qualified in his eyes. "

You may be correct. President Bush may believe she is as good as any of the other potential nominees. George needs glasses then. And Republican Senators should politely reject the nomination. Ann Coulter was rather caustic in her commentary piece but I believe her accurate when she says, "...Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on 'The West Wing,' let alone to be a real one."

1,062 posted on 10/06/2005 9:44:33 AM PDT by Impeach98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1060 | View Replies]

To: stevestras
I had asked for an independent thought. What you give me is the same pap the White House is putting out. The best they can come up with is the President likes her. That might be ok for an Administrative position, not for a lifetime appointment to a branch of the government that decides what laws get to be Constitutional.

Let's however, pretend that your "independent thought" is actually that and not a weak White House talking point. Ok, so now warm and fuzzy feelings are the basis by which we select Supreme Court Justices as opposed to published judicial opinions by actually qualified people. That may be sufficient standard for you, but not for actual thinking conservatives. The "trust me" argument holds no water.

Conservatives have trusted President Bush for 5 years. He has gotten multiple passes from the conservatives who turned out in droves in 2004 to re-elect him(from the education bill to the first new entitlement program in 40 years to border security that results in borders that leak like sieves) because we counted on him to nominate originalists to the Supreme Court as he had promised to do. He has now has two opportunities to appoint Justices such as he promised to appoint during the campaign. Instead, we have Justice Roberts who, while brilliant, is not an originalist, but at best, a minimalist (as demonstrated again by his questioning during oral arguments yesterday - on the bright side we now only have to wait about 29 years 360 days before we get rid of this stealth nominee and appoint someone with an actual judicial philosophy). And now Harriet Miers, who barely meets the requirements for an Appeals Court Judge, never mind for an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This is what happens when you appoint people without a judicial philosophy. Someone rooted in a judicial philosophy like originalism doesn't "grow and change" once they are on the Court as have 5 of the last 7 Republican nominees (who undoubtedly met your warm and fuzzy feeling criterion).

The President has blundered badly if he thinks there won't be consequences in 2006 and 2008 for this betrayal of people who have been working for decades for just these opportunities that have now been squandered. For one thing, he won't be getting the automatic support by conservatives for his obscene spending and wealth transfer programs as he once did, since conservatives can now demonstrate to him the same loyalty that he has demonstrated to us. His guest worker/amnesty program is dead. His White House aides got just a sampling of this yesterday in their closed door meetings. This issue won't go away and will become the deciding factor in who conservatives support in 2006 and 2008. A Senator willing to show some backbone and lead the opposition against this boneheaded appointment will certainly generate interest among actual conservatives who still believe in small, less intrusive government and Supreme Court nominees with proven philosophies of interpreting the Constitution in an originalist fashion.

1,063 posted on 10/06/2005 9:50:00 AM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

As I said, good but not outstanding. I don't see cum laude or better after either degree. The Mortar Board is for service and leadership, not academic brilliance. One of eight women is impressive, but what was her class rank? There are all kinds of good reasons why brilliant people wind up at second and third tier schools, but if they do, they produce a much more impressive record than this. What this says to me is that she's intelligent and works hard--- and no more than that. Competant, but never influential, never groundbreaking. Add that to absolutely no background in Constitutional law, and you have a pretty poor choice for the highest court in the land.


1,064 posted on 10/06/2005 9:54:32 AM PDT by born in the Bronx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

Excuse me "Idiot Laureate," did I ask for your correspondence?! Go away!!!


1,065 posted on 10/06/2005 10:20:39 AM PDT by PatriotBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1059 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Dear Ann, Your 15 minutes of fame expired

The size of this thread would strongly suggest otherwise.

Ann took a header over the cliff and we can't stop gawking.

~smirk~

1,066 posted on 10/06/2005 10:49:46 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1038 | View Replies]

To: born in the Bronx
Competant, but never influential

Just keep telling yourself that.

~eye roll~

1,067 posted on 10/06/2005 10:53:06 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1064 | View Replies]

To: PatriotBill
"Go away!!!"

You first!

1,068 posted on 10/06/2005 11:01:47 AM PDT by subterfuge (Obama, mo mama...er Osama-La bamba, uh, bama...banana rama...URP!---Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1065 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero

"For one thing, he won't be getting the automatic support by conservatives for his obscene spending and wealth transfer programs as he once did, since conservatives can now demonstrate to him the same loyalty that he has demonstrated to us. "

So, conservatives were agreeing to obscene spending and wealth transfer in exhange for Bush picking who they want on the Supreme Court?

The simple truth is that Bush picked her over others because he thinks that she will produce the most votes over the long run that you and other conservatives are pleased with. He may be wrong, but only time will tell.


1,069 posted on 10/06/2005 11:04:44 AM PDT by stevestras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1063 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Judging by the overall reaction to this nomination, it doesn't look like Ann's the one who went off the deep end.
1,070 posted on 10/06/2005 11:46:41 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1066 | View Replies]

To: Fawn
He picked her because he has trust in her and has said that she was the most qualified in his eyes.

Then it's the second of the two options that I listed.

1,071 posted on 10/06/2005 11:48:51 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1060 | View Replies]

To: BonnieJ

No! We must all worship GW Bush. He is almighty and always right. He has a PLAN!


1,072 posted on 10/06/2005 11:55:23 AM PDT by Barney Gumble (Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

Huh? What celebrity? WHy do you hate Bush and why are you in this forum?


1,073 posted on 10/06/2005 12:03:16 PM PDT by Fawn (Try Not----Do or Do not ~~ Yoda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1061 | View Replies]

To: Fawn
"Huh? What celebrity? WHy do you hate Bush and why are you in this forum?"

Hey how are you doing newbie? You're in love with Bush as demonstrated by your posts. I certainly like and have supported the man for a few years now. I rallied with him in Orlando and FReeped John Kerry...twice. Went toe-to-toe with some union thugs at the first FReep. See,the thing is, I'm an American first, a Conservative second and a Republican last. I really do like Bush, but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

BTW, I get a real kick out of you newbies who say "why are you in this forum"!

1,074 posted on 10/06/2005 12:11:51 PM PDT by subterfuge (Obama, mo mama...er Osama-La bamba, uh, bama...banana rama...URP!---Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1073 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge
You must of missed the threads where we were discussing how people who use 'newbie' as a weapon have this superiority attitude. I've been reading this forum for yearsand just because you signed up to post before me does not mean you are better, more conservative or superior to people who signed up after you.
Your insinuation that I love Bush from my posts is ridiculous...if you go back further, you will see that I am upset with him over a couple things like immigration and prescription drugs. But I am going to hold back on my condemnation on the appt. of this judge. I believe you can't condemn her or him until you have evidence of how she will rule in the future. You're ASSuming things.......
PS...I was also at 'THE' rally outside the palm beach county court house when the final votes were being counted for Bush in 2000...(thought I'd mention it since you had to point out where were ~~ to try to impress)
Pss....You must therefore be in love with Ann, since you attack me for my unfavorable comment of her.
1,075 posted on 10/06/2005 12:26:27 PM PDT by Fawn (Try Not----Do or Do not ~~ Yoda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1074 | View Replies]

To: Fawn

Bushbot.


1,076 posted on 10/06/2005 1:13:36 PM PDT by subterfuge (Obama, mo mama...er Osama-La bamba, uh, bama...banana rama...URP!---Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1075 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Judging by the overall reaction to this nomination, it doesn't look like Ann's the one who went off the deep end.

True, her psychosis is shared...

1,077 posted on 10/06/2005 1:30:22 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1070 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger
Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

Elitist snobbery at its finest. Ann is becoming what she once railed against. And the last sentence is a lie - so much for her being against Slander.

1,078 posted on 10/06/2005 1:33:27 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

By me. Miers does not belong on the Supreme Court and President Bush should not have nominated her. AC hits it right on -- too many other people and are far more deserving of the nomination.


1,079 posted on 10/06/2005 1:36:42 PM PDT by tdewey10 (Extremely disappointed in the Miers nomination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1077 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

As much as I like Ann, she should put a sock in it.

None of this griping is going to help anyone and it just weakens the President.

Even the Dems are not that dumb!


1,080 posted on 10/06/2005 1:37:16 PM PDT by arjay (May God give President Bush strength and comfort in this time of struggle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,041-1,0601,061-1,0801,081-1,1001,101-1,117 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson