Posted on 10/04/2005 10:39:32 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
Ann Coulter just took apart President Bush's SCOTUS nominee on the air during her appearance on the Mike Rosen show here in Denver on 850am KOA. She called for listeners to write their senators to oppose the nomination. Wish you could have heard it!
Ann said - "Totally unqualified", called Judge Roberts "a 'dream' candidate in light of this nomination", mentioned "cronyism" over and over. Much more that I'm trying to digest. I called the station to see if they saved the audio, but no luck on that. Mike Rosen was just about speechless as Ann went on and on about why this was a lousy choice.
I agree with Ann. Huge mistake and missed opportunity.
Ann's choice, Janice Rodgers-Brown. Not enough intestinal fortitude in the White House to go with that choice.
Can't wait for Ann's column on this nomination later this week.
I suppose you're right. Just like we have to allow the millions to come right up the gut while we wait anxiously for another 9-11 style attack that will (hopefully) galvanize the nation for a little while so we can take a few more baby steps in the war on terror.
Exactly right - Too bad Ann went to that level - It is pathetic argument - Truly pathetic -
Her thinking is not consistent or rational at all times.
So, should we cower in fear that the Gang of 14 didn't really mean "except in extraordinary circumstances", that there really is an unspoken agreement that those freed by the "deal" had a one-time-only reprieve, or that the RINOs would see an attempt to filibuster any nominee that is more conservative than the Justice he or she is replacing as an "extraordinary circumstance" and thus not allow the Constitutional option?
Or should we use this chance to at least try to move SCOTUS appreciably to the right, using the fact that Roberts didn't face a filibuster and the 'RATs couldn't even get more than half their members to oppose him on the floor to our advantage?
Given her response to Roberts, I could have predicted what she'd say about Miers, but it doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
Much as I would have loved to wage direct war on the Dems, the cards just didn't fall the right way for an Owen, Brown, Luttig, etc nomination. If Rehnquist had retired first, we could have gotten one of those in either as cheif or as an associate justice with Thomas or Scalia going to cheif. In that case, Roberts would have been the perfect "olive branch" candidate for O'Connor's seat.
As it is, if Bush had nominated y/our preferred candidate for this particular seat after most of the Dems voted for Roberts, they would claim that they are being reasonable while performing the most unreasonable act they possibly could: a filibuster. Certainly Brown and Owen do not deserve another filibuster, especially given that the Dems would have a defense against the charge of obstructionism on this one.
IMHO, Bush did what he had to do. I believe this pick upholds his campaign promise of a strict constructionist, while acknowledging the cards he was dealt. We'll see.
Tell me again why President Bush took the unusual step of supporting him in the 2004 Pennsylvania Primary?
Bush isn't exactly Lord Cardigan at Balaclava either.
No. I'm disappointed the President didn't want to force this issue. Are we the majority or are we not?
When Ann is the president then she can pick any candidate she wants.
What must Edith Jones be thinking today?
Gee, if I had only spent more time toadying to the right people, instead of establishing an impeccable record on the bench, then maybe I would have been considered for this seat.
It's important to have a political party where not everyone is drinking the same Kool Aid. For the most part, everyone here agrees on the basic goals of conservatism. We part company in various ways, but it says a lot that different FReepers can have diametrically opposing views on certain issues, and still recognize what is going to make this country great. I bicker with a lot of people, but we all recognize the horror of, say, Hillary Clinton.
And "trust him, no matter what" Bushbots. That's the vibe I'm getting and I sure don't want a theocracy.
And whether others "like it or not", those of us who do not like it cannot be compelled to do so. It's a free country, for a while.
Then why are Luttig, Owen and Rogers Brown still cooling their heels on the sidelines?
He may not be a coward (that remains to be seen) but he's apparently a weenie.
LBJ was a Big Government socialist, but he knew how to corral his party to get what he wanted done. Bush runs and hides when threatened by the likes of pasty northeastern losers like Jeffords, Snowe, Chaffee and Collins.
No, she thought he was an unknown quanity, and he is. Why risk an unknown quanity was her take on the Roberts appointment, also we do not yet know how Roberts will turn out, but it is interesting to note that the GOP has appointed the vast majority of the SC since WW2. The GOP does not have a history of appointing conservative judges which is something that Ann would like to change.
Your acting like he is clueless about this woman and the situation is the exact opposite.
Maybe I'm no longer convinced that President Bush really wants to use the opportunity to move SCOTUS rightward. Maybe she, like Putin, has fooled Bush. In any case, I can't trust this pick to be any more (or less for that matter) than O'Connor was at this point; not without more, non-conflicting info.
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.