Posted on 10/07/2005 7:56:06 PM PDT by Dustin Hawkins
For those with HBO (and who can stomach Maher's nauseating spiel), Coulter will be on with Andrew Sullivan, and... Ben Affleck! Ahem. Anyway...
"That would be the "normal Americans" Coulter referred to, who (according to her) believe the devil is abstract, unlike the elite grads who deal with the devil every day."
I think she called all of us stupid. But what do I know? I'm just a "normal American."
I was very turned off a few days ago, when Coulter said on Hannity's radio show that Miers didn't go to a top law school."
Priscilla Owen, who Ann always raves about.
She also went to a Texas-based law school.(Baylor)
Miers went to SMU.
The point is...Maher usually has only weak conservatives on his show and when he finally has someone like Ann on she blows it by going along with the libs. It converts casual viewers trying to figure out where they stand to the lib side. She's a mess lately.
Ann is not making points by me either, if she really made comments about the President "boozing it up", she can go to hell.
You say.
I doubt many agree with the notion that only graduates from elite universities are skilled enough to deal with the devil. Normal people have plenty of experience, believe it or not.
Totally true.
Ann should realize Hannity, Limbaugh and Drudge never graduated college.
Do you see her putting them down? NO
"Normal people have plenty of experience, believe it or not."
I like to think of myself as a normal person, and I've seen lots of other normal people "lose" arguments to verbally facile liberals simply because they weren't practiced enough to present their side of the argument strongly, or to spot ambushes in the making.
Constitutional law is a particular sort of intellectual pursuit, and to holding your own against liberals requires experience in that particular area.
In college I had a friend who was a grand master in chess. I never beat him.
After we had been playing for a couple of months, the first ten or fifteen moves of any game only took a few seconds, because we knew what any move meant up to that point, and it was always I who came up against a move that made me stop to think.
The intellectual competition in debates is similar, in that a person needs to know -- having seen them a thousand times before -- all the more rudimentary traps and ambushes, and know them well enough just to brush them aside. That only comes with experience.
Compared to some posts on this thread you sound about as qualified to comment as a janitor. (Now does that not sound really uncalled for on my part?) Was there any need for me to attack you like that? No and Ann should not have attacked Meirs. And that is what she did.
"I won't dispute your opinion there. However, I would call it "to the point" rather than gratuitous. "<>
Then she should just say it like this, "I think others are more qualified." That would be to the point. Comparing Miers comparative legal skills to a cleaning lady, is a gratuitous, snotty insult that obscures the point.
---"That would be the "normal Americans" Coulter referred to, who (according to her) believe the devil is abstract, unlike the elite grads who deal with the devil every day."
I think she called all of us stupid. But what do I know? I'm just a "normal American."---
One thing for certain. Things will never be the same on Free Republic, at least not in regard to Ann Coulter.
"Ann should realize Hannity, Limbaugh and Drudge never graduated college. Do you see her putting them down? NO"
You would if Bush nominated them for the Supreme Court.
I'm getting a sense here that Ann's real offense is against radical egalitarianism.
Many, many charges of "elitism."
The fact is, some people are smarter than others, and some smart people have done more with their intelligence than other smart people.
Who ya gonna pick, Douglass MacArthur or Whatsisname Shinseki? Winston Churchill or Neville Chamberlain? Robert Bork or Harriet Miers?
Another thought running through this thread is pre-emptive surrender: "Let's be happy with what the liberals will let us have, because they won't let us get what we want."
I say, damn that. It's time to draw a line in the sand and duke it out. Or it was, until Miers was nominated.
No where in the Constitution does it say that one must be a judge or have written extensively to be considered for the SCOTUS. The point of SCOTUS was to have people from many walks of life so that the people were fairly represented. In my dealings with judges I have found that over time, after being the ultimate say in so many cases, it is common for them to go power mad and sometimes consider themselves bigger than the constitution. We have seen this so often recently not only by the Supremes but on the 9th Circuit, etc.
Recently, judges have been the only consideration for SCOTUS. If you do not believe that Miers is qualified because she was not a judge or author or whatever your template may be then you yourself believe in a living, changing,constitution. No where is it written that she must be.
Yes she can. She's a scold...like Maureen Dowd. I have her book How to Talk to a Liberal and it occured to me that she's really so over the top with the insults that no Democrat will ever read it... so in a way what good does the book do? Conservative commentators have to make a living and to get attention they have to push people's buttons. Sometimes I get a little resentful and conservative commentators because I feel manipulated by them in the same way the MSM media does it. It's hard to know how much of Ann's bomb throwing and button pushing is just to get attention and keep her career going.
Coulter found the practice of law boring, and for good reason: it IS boring, most of the time. 18 hours a day as you try to handle four cases at once. This is the life at many top firms. Futhermore, this is the life of a supreme cour justice. Most cases are intrinsically nno more interesting than that which appears on the docket of any federal district judge. In fact they are often the same cases, elevated only because the lower courts did a sloppy job with it.
"Was there any need for me to attack you like that? No and Ann should not have attacked Meirs. And that is what she did."
The difference is that neither of us is a public person. And, of course, that our purpose here is to discuss issues, and neither of us is an issue.
"Comparing Miers comparative legal skills to a cleaning lady, is a gratuitous, snotty insult that obscures the point."
I don't think it's just her legal skills that are at issue here. I'm sure there are many highly skilled and successful criminal lawyers, for instance, or contract lawyers, who have neither the knowledge nor the temperament to be a Supreme Court justice.
Then, too, there's another concept that legal beagles talk about a lot: judicial temperament. It is considered to be just as important as knowledge, experience, and intelligence to good performance on the bench.
I don't have it. I should never be a judge, even if I were as knowledgeable, experienced, and intelligent as Robert Bork (which, it goes without saying, I am not).
What do we know of Miers' judicial temperament? How does anyone know how she will perform on the bench?
Bush had Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Eddie Matthews, Mel Ott, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey, Ted Williams and Babe Ruth on the bench, and he sent in an unknown from the AAA leagues instead. No comprendo, senor.
You don't think the liberals weren't lapping up that boozing remark???!! I hate it that she gave even on of them that kind of satisfaction just so she could vent and rant. We don't need this crap at this time.
"No where in the Constitution does it say that one must be a judge or have written extensively to be considered for the SCOTUS."
That's right, it doesn't. It doesn't bar the exercise of common sense, either.
Or the grace.
Absurd comparisons. Just look at the actual people who have sat on the court for the past two hundred years. For every Marshall you have a Tom Clark. Miers is way above the level of a Clark. The best proof of that is his son Ramsey.
"You don't think the liberals weren't lapping up that boozing remark?"
Like a dog returning to its vomit.
But where are we harmed by that? Let them waste their time with inconsequential matters; let them spend their energy patting each other on the back.
"Absurd comparisons. Just look at the actual people who have sat on the court for the past two hundred years."
The comparison is not with those who have sat on the court, but with those available for Bush to choose from.
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.