Skip to comments.
SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER
Ann Coulter.com ^
| 7-30-05
| Ann Coulter
Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 901-903 next last
To: RobFromGa
"So the french fry case is really just this court throwing out a frivolous lawsuit against the police who were enforcing a well-known law."
Probably true, but the Dems are spinning it as picking on and roughing up a little girl because of a french fry. Don't underestimate their ability to obscure the legal issues and try to make Roberts sound like a bully. I can hear it now (woman's voice in shocked tones): "Judge Roberts handcuffed a 12 year old girl for eating a french fry on a bus."
To: traderrob6
If he is a strict constctionalist.....you have your answer.And looking at it the other way around, a judges attitude about the RKBA tells us whether he trusts the people or the government first.
To: Texas Federalist
Balderdash, if she is equating him with Souter, that's exactly what she's saying.
To: Russ
For all we know the great Mark Levin is on the payroll, ala Armstrong Williams. Don't tell me Levin likes him. Tell me upon what he bases his support.
364
posted on
07/20/2005 9:02:05 AM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
To: rwfromkansas
Perhaps you should actually read some of his rulings. By avoiding my question, you have answered it.
365
posted on
07/20/2005 9:02:28 AM PDT
by
Texas Federalist
(No matter what my work/play ratio is, I am never a dull boy.)
To: tame
It's the other nominations we need to worry about. Hoping Bush loads this court with proven conservatives...turning those black robes back to protecting America and the majority of Americans' values.
Bush could have several more nominations, most probably 2 more. ;o)
366
posted on
07/20/2005 9:03:53 AM PDT
by
shield
(The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
To: puroresu
"In addition, by doing this they are conceding that the 'Rat definition of "mainstream" is the correct one. They're basically saying, "Hey look, our nominee isn't out of the mainstream....he's never once criticized Roe . . . "
I completely agree. I think the judicial philosophy debate is one that conservatives can easily win, because - even in this Oprahfied society - original intent corresponds to how most people think about the law.
To: CollegeRepublicanNU
Putting Roberts on the bench should please most conservative for now Sounds like a rationalization. I need only point to CFR to show that Bush can sometimes be painfully, woefully wrong. CFR was actually horrible misjudgement on his part and it happened to involve what is in the most charitable interpretation a serious miscalculation of the Supreme Court. There is reason for doubt, and I wish conservatives would put down the kool aid long enough to exert some real pressure from the right.
368
posted on
07/20/2005 9:04:50 AM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
To: BadAndy
Leave Ann alone. As she gets older she will naturally get fatter. I wouldn't count on it. Ectomorphs usually get even thinner.
369
posted on
07/20/2005 9:05:16 AM PDT
by
El Gato
To: i_dont_chat
You can't judge a chess game by only one move.Sure you can. How aggressive is that first move?
This one is a "slam dunk". I think the game will be Renquist's replacement.(the second move).
I am looking for a woman to fill that one.
Oh yeah, has to be a strict constructionist.
370
posted on
07/20/2005 9:05:39 AM PDT
by
llevrok
(Semper Conservatatis)
To: puroresu
Too many good people like Mark Levin like this guy for him to be another Souter. I think Ann's a little carried away on this one. Or maybe Ann is trying to give liberals some false hope to support the guy.
I do agree with her, though, that the GOP conservatives should be more aggressive in defending their judicial philosophy. By constantly nominating people with little or no paper trail, you do take a risk of giving us a Souter or an O'Connor or a Kennedy.
Certainly, and I had that feeling with Judge Edith "Joy" Clements yesterday. But Roberts seems 100% solid in the mold of Scalia. Maybe he will disappoint and only be a Rehnquist. But Roberts is no O'Conner and certainly not a Souter.
To: Steve_Seattle
Probably true, but the Dems are spinning it as picking on and roughing up a little girl because of a french fry.That's why it is important that the truth be told.
372
posted on
07/20/2005 9:06:28 AM PDT
by
RobFromGa
(Send Bolton to the UN!)
To: rwfromkansas
Um, Luttig voted against Bush in the WOT. Whether or not you support Bush in your rulings is not the measure of whether you are a textualist or a originalist.
373
posted on
07/20/2005 9:07:14 AM PDT
by
Texas Federalist
(No matter what my work/play ratio is, I am never a dull boy.)
To: dangus
We crossed messages.
I know she was referring to Souter. My point is that the attempted comparison to Roberts (who is married and lives in MD with his wife and two kids) has no basis except Coulter's fear of taking a position that is not viewed as the most 'conservative' position on any given topic.
There is no reason to think this guy is anything other than top-notch. Ann is out to lunch on this one. Her presumptions about him are not founded upon anything except her desire to stake out ground to the right of everyone else.
374
posted on
07/20/2005 9:08:35 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
To: Texas Federalist
Yeah, appointing truck drivers to the Court is a great idea. Where do you come up with this stuff? When you consider that a bag of rocks for a Supreme Court would do far less damage to this country than the Court we now have, I don't think it's such a bad idea.
375
posted on
07/20/2005 9:09:09 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
(I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
To: street_lawyer
Such as? Did his client pay him for his time? For example my point is that a criminal defense attorney does not necessarily believe in the innocence of his client nor does he necessarily believe that crimes should not be defined by the legislature? Yes, but he also choose to work for Rhenquist, Bush and Reagan. And has an entire career working for conservative cases. It is impossible for me to believe a liberal lawyer would spend his career arguing in court to overturn Roe v. Wade and fighting for other conservative causes.. I am often skeptical, but I think in this case it is completely uncalled for. It would be nice if he had more bench history to judge him on, but the political reality is that is what makes him confirmable.
To: Always Right
If Roberts is a Souter, finding a good recipe for undershorts will be the least of your worries.
All we can do is wait and see.
To: traderrob6
Balderdash, if she is equating him with Souter, that's exactly what she's saying. She is not equating him with Souter. She is saying that his philosophy is unknown. The comparison to Souter is to underscore the potential danger of nominating someone who's philosophy is unknown.
378
posted on
07/20/2005 9:11:16 AM PDT
by
Texas Federalist
(No matter what my work/play ratio is, I am never a dull boy.)
To: CWW
How am I grasping?
Kennedy was suppose to be "conservative", Souter was suppose to be "conservative", Roberts sounds "conservative" but will not know until he starts deciding cases with 8 other fellow USSC.
It's not like the Republicans have been hoodwinked before (Well Ford still loves the fact he picked Stevens).
I am sorry people question the "Republicans can do no wrong" by pointing out the Republicans past of doing wrong but that's the way it is.
You are going to have people leery considering the Repubs past picks especially passing candidates more "conservative let me shout it to the roof tops" then the Souters, Kennedys, and Roberts.
Also add the fact that this is the first nominee in a long time that Republicans have the House, Senate, and White House. Many Freepers were expecting a genuine, in your face and well qualified "conservative".
379
posted on
07/20/2005 9:12:07 AM PDT
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
To: CollegeRepublicanNU
Putting someone to the slight right on the bench can possibly allow us to push someone more conservative when Rehnquist gives up the bench. Why do you think so? Giving up ground doesn't automatically make the enemy return the favor.
380
posted on
07/20/2005 9:12:16 AM PDT
by
Smile-n-Win
(Don't let them take things away from you on behalf of the public good!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 901-903 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson