Posted on 10/05/2005 7:18:07 PM PDT by quidnunc
Ann Coulter is one of many conservative pundits criticizing the SCOTUS nomination of Harriet Miers. I relish the opportunity to debate the matter with those, like Ann, who take a stance different from mine. In fact, because I believe that serious debate is such enlightening fun, I will continue to publish views on this site that differ from mine. Sadly, Ann has taken the low road, rather than debate me on the merits of my argument in favor of Miers.
On her website today (though not in her syndicated column that contains some duplicate verbiage) she dismisses my defense of Harriet Miers on grammatical grounds. It is bad enough that she fails to deal with the substance of my argument. What makes it truly embarrassing is that she is chooses a point which is highly debatable at best. I would much rather discuss subtance rather than the fine points of grammar disputes.
-snip-
Ann would be much better off criticizing my frequent and often embarrassing typos. But best of all would be a straightforward critique of my ideas. That would be the high road. The road not taken.
Maybe I am too involved in the matter to be of sound judgment, but it seems to me that Ann has just provided support for the thesis that at least one conservative pundit trashing Miers is nothing but a pompous elitist.
By the way, Ann, if you are going to put me down as a barely-educated moron, at least click on the "contributors" link on the website whose name you dare not mention and check out my background. I have three Ivy League sheepskins on my wall, and taught at two Ivies. I don't really have to try to "sound Ivy League."
Coulter is viewed by many as a conservative icon. I find her to be entertaining, that's all. I object to anyone who runs off at the mouth without engaging their brain. It is disappointing to watch Coulter, Kristol et al run off at the mouth simply because they know little about Miers. These type of attacks are best left to liberals and children, who generally show this type of fear with the unknown by name calling and irrational statements. A "brilliant polemicist" would not have to resort to cheap shots to make her point..
She yelled the king has no clothes, in a crowd of people applauding his attire.
At the time, was Clarence Thomas the best constitutional mind available?
I have such a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach about this nomination that I hope I am wrong. Also I am hopeful that something good may come of it although I do not know what that will be.
Maybe Miss Miers will hold a press conference or something. One person suggested she answer the same questions presented to The Chief during his confirmation hearings and that those answers be released to the public now.
Look, Ann and Rush and Mark and Hannity and on and on and on can insist that Bush nominate Ann Coulter (I don't think so) or Mark Levin or one of many other names that have been bandied about the last few days to the position of Associate Justice.
The fact of the matter is that he nominated Harriet Mier. The President believes that she will be in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Most of the conservatives who have worked with her and have commented have praised her highly.
The fact is, all other bitching aside, that G.W. nominated Mier.
And my very strong feeling on this subject is that I am NOT interested in the Republicans administering to her a high tech lynching such as the Democrats did to Clarence Thomas.
Are circular firing squads all that conservatives can muster these days?
I heard Lindsey Graham on Hannity today. He has worked with Mier, and he said he thought she would acquit herself brilliantly in her confirmation hearings. I want to hear what the lady has to say for herself.
"Maybe you should do yourself a favor and withdraw your head now. Too much methane can kill you."
ROFL now that's funny!
Do you really think that the hapless Republican Senators would be in the majority (having lost that status after Jumpin' Jim) if Bush had not intervened in selecting and campaigning for the candidates that brought it back? Do you remember the articles regarding the risk he took to put himself front and center in critical elections across the country? Do you realize how many decades it had been since a party both retained the White House and built on Congressional majorities?
If the Republicans are destroyed in 2006 it will be because they have been finally exposed as too weak to defeat a filibuster, lead social security reform, hold the UN or the State of Louisiana to account, etc. etc. etc. They will be defeated because they ran from the President and in many ways one could argue left him little choice in this current nomination. They were not up for the fight.
I'd agree. I'm usually the first in line to bash Coulter when she wields her divisive punditry. But in this situation, I think her point is valid. I also think your analogy about general practitioners and brain surgeons is appropriate. Not everyone with a J.D. is qualified to be the highest judge in the land, regardless of how 'orginialist' their views may be.
Could Ann possibly be engaged in reverse psychology, in this case the game of lowering everyone's expectations ? - - - I predict we'll be impressed by Miers' performance at the Judiciary Committee. I predict she'll be formidable. As I mentioned to Pukin Dog, you don't become a litigator of her rank without an ability to master huge amounts of information and legal principles, and wield them like a gladiator in court (or in this case, in a public hearing)
THey're not going to be any more tricky than the high-powered attorneys with whom she's dueled over her career as a litigator. It's all a matter of preparation, including developing responses to anticipated trick questions. She's done it all before, always in different legal and factual contexts - - she knows how to prepare for a gladiatorial fight, because that's been her business (and she's been at the top of that business) for more than 20 years.
Good post freedomdefender...
I don't know.
But what matters to me is whether she's a vote on the good side or a vote on the bad side. What else matters?
I agree that Thomas is a great supreme court justice who was not, at the time, the best of the best.
So why can't Miers have the same experience?
"THey're not going to be any more tricky than the high-powered attorneys with whom she's dueled over her career"
Other than being a tad bit sleazier
I wanted Janice Rogers Brown too. She was my pick.
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.