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.
Looks like we have no choice but to see how it plays out. Let's hope for the best.
And that's a bad thing how?
If anything it could put some meat on Coulter's bones.
Secondly, if she had some body fat, maybe she wouldn't be so harpie-like.
It might do her some good to actually get out and meet some of the REAL people who call themselves Conservatives, instead of caging herself in some Liberal bastion somewhere in the Northeast.
Sure it does. It's more than just a management position. The bar associations elect someone who is their voice to the state, who is ambitious enough to keep maverick lawyers in check, who will go after abusive lawyers, who will stand up to politicians, who can appeal to both liberal and conservative attorneys, who can determine proper pro bono recipients and determine where bar grants might best be spent. However, if she were only the president of the bar (i.e., some MBA or something), I would agree with you, but she has a law degree and she has practiced law. Ergo, she can understand legal reasoning, read and understand the Constitution, laws and decisions and even speak a little latin. She can research history and argue her point of view logically and persuasively.
We will. Just don't shorten your lifespan on this. It isn't worth it.
I'll give you that she has some past real world experience. But in the last 6 years she has been hip deep with Washington. With what has come out of Washington lately makes me wonder if the water isn't posioned or something up there.
What evidence do you have she'll be even close to Scalia and Thomas? You DON'T and that is what Ann is saying. I happen to believe that our country's future is too important to ride on the opinion of one person, even if its George Bush. Stealth candidate, plain and simple.
And all these people who think its great she has no family are just weird. I don't think people who have never had children have a complete understanding of what life is really about.
Yeah. Bush is so damned stupid he got elected president twice, governor of Texas twice, and the GOP has increased its majorities in every election since 2000.
If you're so damned intelligent, what are you doing posting on a website in the middle of the afternoon? Why aren't you running something?
You are typical of the know-it-all unappeaseables who couldn't figure out how to run a PTA meeting.
So, maybe he was a political idiot for a moment
You do know that a President's base isn't me, myself, and I.
I agree with that. I hope she is everything that the President says she is, but we've been burned before.
Moreover, I think it's a slap at every distinguished conservative appellate justice out there. Conservative jurists with a distinguished paper trail need not apply for a promotion.
I get no comfort from knocking this administration, but this strategy is Shameful.
I was being sarcastic. Forgot the tag.
I'm as mad as her as I am at him.
This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. And the competition has been fierce.
Now, follow me with this, for a moment. The following senators will NOT vote for a hard-line conservative, especially if they are suspicious that the person might be adamantly pro-life: Snowe, Collins, Chaffee.
Subtract those 3, and you are at 52-48. Now we have to add the cowards who don't vote with us when the press gets mad: Voinovich and DeWine.
Subtract those 2, and you are at 50-50.
Now, subtract the "mavericks" from our side, Hagel and McCain, and you have 48-52, with us losing the nomination.
I don't have a hard time at all envisioning this happening, particularly since conservative pundits did their best to help bring Bush's poll numbers down by trashing him on his Katrina response for two solid weeks.
I haven't even factored in Graham, Spector, and Lugar, whose votes are hard to predict.
Why do you think the Presidient should send up a nominee who would run into this situation? Explain how you are going to get Snowe, Voinovich, and the rest to vote for a nominee like Janice Rogers Brown. In my opinion, it won't happen.
There is a lack of spine, but it is in the Senate.
I didn't say anything about Kennedy's record...he'd been on the 9th Circuit for about 10 years but I don't think that he had a particularly strong record...he was a moderate conservative judge which is probably what was needed after the Democrat controlled Senate viciously destroyed Robert Bork and then followed that up by quickly seeking to destroy Reagan's second pick...the very strong originalist Douglas Ginsburg...who withdrew his own nomination after just a few days.
Now...we don't know what Bush knows about Miers' philosophy of judicial review...other than playing a role in selecting John Roberts, I don't know of any official role she played that would lead anyone to believe that Bush or anyone else could be clear about her views on the Constitution. Are we supposed to believe they've just had a lot of casual conversations about Constitutional issues over the years? Bush today said he could not recall ever discussing Roe v Wade with her.
No thanks...I'll take someone with a significant public record advocating an originalist position...I still haven't heard any explanation as to why we should be happy to take this leap in the dark and just "trust the President"
You mean like "Love Canal"? Or was that from 92-2000? Look, Washington DC lifestyle is definitely self-selecting as far as temperaments. Most down-to-earth people couldn't stand it for long. She has been there six years but at least they have been Bush's six years. I think she is like the other self-confident women Bush keeps around him. If he is grounded, and I think he is, the people around him have a better chance of staying grounded. All I'm saying is maybe we don't know her enough yet to make such dire predictions of her abilities. I have a hard time thinking Bush is simply rewarding a loyal friend with such an important lifetime position. I believe he knows her better than anyone here on this forum. Of course, I will stand corrected if it turns out like a lot of you are predicting.
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.