she said that all of his constructionist/conservative opinions came when he was working for conservative prez's. yet, when speaking for himself, he's made a point of distancing himself from the legal opinions he wrote when his client was the us govt.
i said earlier that she was against this nomination. it would be more accurate to say that she has very serious doubts, b/c she can't find anything where he expressed his own opinions & where those opinions sounded constructionist/conservative.
Tell her to contact Mark Levin, who is thrilled or Laura Ingraham equally so.
Well, I'd feel better if he took target practice with a 44, but I've got the feeling probably not.
....maybe he was 'educated' by the Borking of Robert Bork and from 1987 onward has crafted a careful public record in preparation for this very day. I remember clearly thinking about that (in general) in 1987: that after the Senator from Chappaquidick had made 'borking' into a new noun in the English language, no lawyer who had hopes of a nomination to the SCOTUS would ever want to go on record with political opinions, conservative ideas, etc.
I can't say whether Ann Coulter is right to worry - I don't know enough about him, which may itself lend support to her worries that he does have Souter potential (we would all KNOW it before now if he were someone certain to give the left fits). I'm cautiously optimistic, but I sure do hope he's more of a 'stealth' candidate for our side than for the Souters of the world.....