Posted on 10/03/2005 3:07:23 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Count Ann Coulter among the conservatives who are unhappy with President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
Asked by NewsMax.com if she considers Miers to be what she had called John Roberts after his nomination - a "tabula rasa” - Coulter, who’s now out with the paperback edition of her best-seller "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” said:
"No. She’s something new: a complete mediocrity.”
Ouch.
I resent that. When Clinton got to make a nomination, his base got Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was the big ACLU lawyer, who sailed through her confirmation. When Bush gets a nomination, he sends up Roberts and Meirs who is a lawyer for some firm in Texas that donated money to Gore and has no conservative credentials...I feel like he has quit on his base, not the other way around.
Speak for yourself, RINO. You don't speak for the conservative movement.
Thank you for posting the wise words of Mr. Henry.
That's what I thought could happen, from my post 146: The democrats have been saying from the getgo that they are going to fight the next nominee. Maybe Bush, knowing this has picked a sacrificial lamb so to speak for the democratic wolves. He has it worked out with her that this is going to be ugly and she will probably not be passed by the senate. Perhaps they are doing this, to play the democrats fighting hand, and then they will choose an uber conservative constitutionalist. The nation will be tired and sick of the fighting over a judge and the people will be ready for their senators to just pick one already. Then again, I may be wrong.
I don't get that sense at all. The fear is a legitimate one - of judges who regard the Constitution as a "living", "evolving" document, rather than a basic set of ground rules set in stone. We can see what dangers lie in the view of the Constitution as being mutable - note the violation of property rights that Souter endorsed. What is required is a judge who will strictly adhere to the idea that those ground rules are set in stone, and not act in favour of one group or another, but rather in defence of those rules.
We do not have enough information at this point to confirm that Miers believes this. Therein lies the problem; particularly since there were so many wonderful candidates available whose adherence to these principles was assured.
Regards, Ivan
Probably the first Coulter thread that took 88 posts before the rule was applied.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. I add pounds in the autumn and shed them in the spring. Guess you could say I'm a dyslexic deciduously skinny, old greying haired lady. LOL
Even more than the mediocrity of the candidate is the mediocrity revealed of the person who nominated her. "Birds of a feather............."
Coulter pegged Miers as "mediocre." You're voicing support for that judgment in your own special way.
I don't see how you could possibly arrived at such a conclusion. Do you have something against lawyers who spent their careers in the private sector being nominated to SCOTUS?
Oh for heaven's sake!!! Are you series? Duh, I don't know, why would I post a memo from the RNC that deals with the very topic of this thread. Hmmmmm, maybe because it was informative? Maybe because it may be worthy of reading, or discussing what the RNC was saying today? Don't worry, it wasn't a planned conspiracy. I promise. :)
Thanks! Love your tagline line by the way. I definitely have my work cut out for me tomorrow on reading up on Miers. Sometimes (well, usually) I learn more from reading what the other posters say, and not the news outlets.
What stuff?
No. Bush's dad knew nothing about Souter other than what Rudman and Sununu told him.
Bush has been working with Harriett Meiers for TWELVE YEARS. He knows her, and likely learned more as she vetted the recent crop of SC potentials.
I honestly believe that the main reason behind the downcast faces here is that most wanted to get into a pissing contest with the Democrats on the judiciary committee.
Deep down, that's true, isn't it?
Why is it that Bush has named tremendous candidates to the Appeals Courts, but, all of a sudden, you guys think Bush has gone soft on appointments to the highest court in the land?
uh...what's yer point?
I'm not speaking for it. I'm simply pointing out the logical inference to be gleaned from the response to this nomination. In the past I spoke of liberal whack-jobs running around screaming like a wagonload of chimpanzees with their asses on fire. That's an affliction apparently not confined to the left.
Did you feel the same way about Roberts? He wasn't very well known, and sailed through, and will make a great Chief Justice.
You want a war with the Democrats, and you ought to know by now that Bush doesn't play that way. Ever.
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.