[perfect stranger]

[GB]

Ms. Coulter needs to either take a Prozac, or some Immodium for her diarrhea of the mouth/word processor/whatever.

The telling line was the one about how we need folks from the elite schools who've developed a "finely tuned hatred of liberals." Did you see a finely tuned hatred of liberals in John Roberts' eyes during the hearings? I didn't. (Maybe that's why Ms. Coulter was so lukewarm in her support for Justice Roberts.) This may sound like a wussy attitude, and flame away if you will ... but I don't care if our SCOTUS justices have a finely tuned hatred of liberals. I just want 'em to enforce the U.S. Constitution using the original intent of the Founders. Period. Anything else is irrelevant, IMHO.

[Quick1]

While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s

Did they forget to change the byline to read that Tom Tomorrow was the guest columnist today?

[Natural Law]

Ann Coulter reminds me of Dave Kingman. Kingman was a major league ball player who hit over 400 home runs despite striking our over 150 times a year and having a life time batting average of barely .200. The connection is that she may hit some towering shots, but she strikes out far more often. Ph, and by the way, they are both skinny, whiny b*tches.

[loveliberty2]

Now there's a "conservative" Maureen Dowd.

[flada]

And this from a woman who earned her JD from Michigan. Last I checked, that's not exactly Ivy League. So what gives Ann the legal expertise to judge who is and isn't qualified to be on the high court? By her own admission, it isn't her non-Ivy League degree.

[CalRepublican]

Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right. That might sound harsh, but it is the absolute truth--Bush is not the guardian of the conservative movement. He is unquestionably a latecomer to the game politically. Heck, I'm a young guy and my conservative political thought has been well-developed longer than Bush's has been. As much as I hate to say it, Bush is starting to make this about him when in reality, he is just the product of a conservative movement that finally has been able to take advantage of the fact that Democrats are finally are being perceived as bad for the country. The only example we have of what Bush's constitutional theory means in practice is McCain Feingold--and that ain't good.

[linkinpunk]

I hope Ann Coulter doesn't go the route of Pat Buchanan.

Unfortunately, I see her heading that way.

[G.Mason]

With all of Anns vitriol oozing through this article I may have missed it, but just whom did Ms Coulter state was the most appropriate SCOTUS pick missed by President Bush?

[varon]

AC bump

[Mr. K]

I can see Ann's point- Bush had not one but TWO opportunities to stick a REAL HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE on the bench,and he does not even have to worry about re-election.

I woulda sent up Bork and had a clone made of him for the 2nd job.

[CWW]

You know I agree with Ann's sentiments here, but she really hurts her argument by resorting to ad hominem attacks regarding Bush's past drinking indiscretions.

[Fawn]

First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.

My respect for her is now an all time low.....yes Ann....Bush was elected to represent the American People.....but he isn't holding his finger up in the air to see which way the wind blows....we trust him for who is he...not who we want him to be......and your comment "when Bush was still boozing it up" is an attack that was immature and unwarranted. I suppose your perfect? Let's talk about your past....oopps ...we don't know anything....let me see...ever try drugs? Pre-marital sex? Use the Lords name in vain? Drive drunk? Puke up your food?

[sittnick]

It took me a couple of days to decide my take on the Miers nomination. My first instinct was simply to sigh. I have never been a Bush enthusiast, but I withheld condemnation of Bush on the basis of SCOTUS and SCOTUS only, (and of course the Dems insistance on finding the most replusive candidate possible).

After a couple of days, I conclude that Miers is Pro-Life (good), but doesn't have an underlying motivation (set of core principles) that motivate her. I disagree with Coulter's take that the SCOTUS appointees have to be the best legal minds out there. If that were the case, we should disregard Bork's age, and put him on. Too old? Where is age listed as a disqualifier. It isn't. And neither is being an Ivy leaguer. If you think that political considerations are not part of the equation, you are on a different planet, or possibly in a different dimension.

I suspect Miss Coulter in this case is blinded by her own background as a Cornell educated constitutional law attorney. This sort of reminds me of Socrates' quest to find wisdom, and every expert he went to seemed to find THE Truth in his profession (to the poet, it was poetry). Miss Coulter is upset because so many more "educated" people are being bypassed.

Well, in real life, the greatest singers don't sell the most CDs. Many talented actresses can only mutter under their breath as the see Reese Witherspoon and her chin starring in another top money-maker.

Coulter also maintains that those who survive the Ivy Leragues are battle tested and ready. Many more are compromised somewhere along the way, including W himself.

I am not inspired by Meiers, but if W doesn't have the will to fight for this, it is too late to pick another president.

I fear the political fallout of forcing another nomination may have unintended consequences.

After the Bork debacle, his replacement was not Kennedy, it was Douglas Ginsburg. Well, it turns out that Doug took some tokes of Mary Jane in his ill-spent time in college, and some conservatives and a number of temporarily temperance-minded Dems piled on for fun. Ginsburg got pulled and Anthony Kennedy (one of those smart guys who was supposed to be reliably conservative after his time in Hah-vuhd Law, doncha know?) was the replacement. Do any of us conservatives regret pushing to drop Ginsburg? I think I do, and I never touched the wacky weed.

I believe that Bush made a mistake in choosing Meiers, because it is splitting the conservative base deeply, and that he should have foreseen that. I also believe that more damage would be done if we pull Meiers and put up another. If Bush doesn't have the will to fight for Janice Rogers Brown, we can't stop him again if he puts up Edith Clement for SCOTUS.

I still sigh when I think of what might have been. But I also believe that Bush has minimally met my personal requirements. That gets him a C. It is time for us to work on getting someone in who will be an A (e.g. Brownback)

One last word on the Coulter column. I went to schools that were selective and full of bright people. I have also attended schools that were completely non-selective.I was in the Chicago Debating Society with a fellow who went to the same law school as Ann, and worked with her at the Center for Individual Rights. The Chancellor of the Chicago Debating Society was a bright (though liberal) U of Chicago Law Student. These guys are human beings, not geeks or nerds, and I can tell you that a student from SMU, or the University of Wyoming (Cheney) or Eureka College (Ronaldus Maximus) can demonstrate a better understanding of the Constitution than Harvard educated traitor Anthony Kennedy. (Ann, I imagine that even Ivy educated lawyers who don't specialize in the field have to do additional research if an obscure Admiralty law issue comes up, just like SMU grads do! If you don't watch it, somebody will try to make a distinction between first tier law schools Harvard, Yale, U of Chicago and second tier ones like, ummmmmm Cornell)

[Impeach98]

Thanks for posting this! I agree with Ann Coulter wholeheartedly.

The scoreboard so far for anyone keeping track of notable conservative intellectuals opposed to (or dismayed at the news of) Harriet Miers' nomination include:

* Laura Ingraham
* George Will
* Ann Coulter
* William Kristol - Weekly Standard
* David Frum - National Review
* Mark Levin
* Terrence Jeffery - Human Events

Those who have been defending the Miers nomination here and at Lucianne.com are good dependable right-of-center people. But you all are glomming on to a faith that Bush picked someone who will be a "good vote."

But really, no one has been able to argue she'd be a "good justice" - there is no evidence, experience, track record, first hand account from anyone who is considered a conservative legal scholar or someone knowledgeable about the Supreme Court who looks at Harriet Miers and sees an Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist or Clarence Thomas.

[Republican Wildcat]

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.

[arjay]

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!

[AgThorn]

What a gal! Love her writing style, wit and arguments.