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.
A Cheney Chick.
And I just love Rummy too!
And to top it off......Dr. Rice/2008
Isn't the term catty???????
That's BS. He asked for a declaration and got one, one week after 9/11.
trying to work the war on terror through the f**kin UN when it was we who were attacked
That's BS too. He's diplomatically b!tchslapped the UN once year since 9/11, each and every time he's gone up there to address the feckless organization each September. You don't know it, because you don't pay attention.
not standing up to the out of control spending in conress by vetoing the pork spending bills
Veto his own legislation?
and most pathetically, asking the minority demonrats in the senate who would be an acceptable list of canditates so they wont filibuster his nominee.
Advise and Consent. But, he's not asking anyone, even his own party. Why do you think he went with the Miers pick in the first place? Half those Republicans and all those Democrats don't like anyone who's to the right of John McCain. Most of the Republicans won't stand up and fight for Bush's nominees for unknown reasons beyond the fact they walk into that chamber with their linguine spines.
This boy is not a fighter and certainly not a hard charger.
BS he ain't.
His path in life should have been on the board of some numbnut country club in Arlen TX that Hank Hill is trying to get into... Not running the nation.
I take comfort knowing that YOU aren't running this country. Slick Willie could tell bigger lies than you could, and most people believed him.
Because he sold out, and did not follow through with his support promises.
How on earth does a couple of years of corporate law, and then a couple of more as a congressional staffer, make you an "expert" in Constitutional Law? Setting the bar awfully low for expertise these days, aren't we?
You're contradicting yourself. You say that Kennedy lied through his teeth and had a strong record, so the President should nominate someone with a strong record. That makes no sense.
The President chose someone he knows personally, whose record he knows (irregardless of what you know). Anyone can say anything if they're not personally known, but it's hard to pull of the lie if you work with someone every day. He did pick someone with a record of originalism, you're just not directly privy to it. She is the anti-Souter and anti-Kennedy.
Guess when you're an elite lawyer like Levin, that would just not have come to mind.
Agreed - it's not a matter of being expert on criminal law - it's a matter of understanding the federal Constitution - and the current crop of 'justices' are brain dead with few exceptions (Scalia and Thomas) on Constitutional issues. There's no requirement for a justice to work their way through the ranks of local/state/federal courts before accepting a position on the bench - if the nominee is unable to fulfill their duties with respect to the Constitution, it's perfectly clear how to settle that particular issue. I'd take Ann Coulter, Janice Rogers Brown or Judge Andrew Napolitano ANY day over W's cronyism picks. There are even several Freepers here that would be fantastic picks - people who owe no political favours, and have demonstrated a thorough understanding of constitutional issues.
Both sides of the Senate seem intent on nominees that meet their political agenda, instead of one that agrees that the Constitution, and not the opinion of a judge, is the supreme law, and that unless it's delegated and enumerated, the federal courts have no jurisdiction.
This nomination is so important it was foolish to take a stab at it, and hope she is an conservative and originalist.
POTUS has no doubts about her at all.
There are cronies and there are cronies.
No, she did not. She criticized her. But to take her apart Harriet would have had to have been present to counter-punch.
"I truly believe Brown and Owens and Jones would have been filibustered."
I agree. Bush knows these ladies are the best of the best. However, he still has to deal with the RINOs in the Senate. The likes of Hagel, Voinovich, Snowe, Chafee, Collins, et. al. would surely have voted against an "out of the mainstream" nominee. That leaves 50 Repubs. One more defection and Bush's nominee goes down. I agree with what Rush said yesterday, "If you went to war, would you want the Republicans in the Senate to be your army?" In a word, no.
His own party betrayed him.
The Republicans have have 55 votes in the Senate. That means the every Democrat and 5 Republicans could vote against a nominee and that nominee could still get through. The GOP may never be this strong in the Senate again.
Clarence Thomas was a known conservative and was slimed with the Anita Hill lies, and he still got confirmed at a time when the Dems controlled the Senate.
Don't excuse Bush's wimpiness by saying that a real conservative (Brown, Owen, Luttig, etc.) couldn't get confirmed.
If FR was around during the Souter nomination, I'm sure that many on this thread would have quoted John Sunnunu calling him a "Home Run" for conservatives (compare that to the spin we are getting from the GOP establishment about Miers now) and saying we should blindly trust Bush's judgement.
"Well I'll answer the question. He should have tried even if he had only 47 or 48 votes"
I really believe you are wrong. Getting a conservative on the SCOTUS is more important than anything else right now.
Good question, and I didn't agree with him doing that. My guess is that GOP control of the Senate was far from certain, and he figured Arlen was a better chance to win in the general election than Toomey. He wanted to maximize his chances of keeping and increasing GOP control. Certainly in retrospect at least, that was a bad call.
Bad call or not, it doesn't change the reality of what we face in October 2005 in terms of Specter's position on nominations. Like it or not -- and I don't -- we're stuck with him now.
"I am proud to be a Bush-bot."
i.e. I love Illegal Immigration, inching us toward socialized medicine, liberal education policies, and campaign Finance reform
"A Cheney Chick."
see above, but add "differs with Bush on Gay agenda"
I'll leave Rummy alone...but
"Dr. Rice 2008"
i.e. pro-abbortion and pro-palestine
This is a first down punt, period.
That's the best description for this that I've seen so far. Mind if I borrow it?
But I am beginning to suspect that many on this site would applaud if Bush appointed Ted Kennedy.
You're dead-on. I can hear the Bush-bots now: "It gets him out of the Senate," "It makes W look like a uniter," "Brilliant strategery," etc.
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.