Ann Coulter just took apart SCOTUS nominee on the Mike Rosen show (My report)

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.

Ann's choice, Janice Rodgers-Brown. Not enough intestinal fortitude in the White House to go with that choice.

Do not be so sure ... A developing, but not surprising, story worth following.

Posted by Crackingham On 10/06/2005 1:17:35 AM PDT · 71 replies · 750+ views

LA Times ^ | 10/6/5 | Maura Reynolds and Tom Hamburger President Bush faced a growing Republican backlash Wednesday over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, with several GOP senators threatening to oppose her confirmation and top conservative activists questioning her qualifications during a tense confrontation with White House advisors. In an effort to quell the discontent, administration aides and allies were dispatched to plead with lawmakers and party activists to give Miers — a longtime Bush friend and lawyer — a chance to prove herself. But on Capitol Hill, some GOP senators made it clear that they were not now in Miers' corner. And at a weekly...

I agree with you in most respects, particularly the seeming unwillingness of Republican politicians to fight for principle with the same vigor shown by the liberals. On abortion, I think if a nominee was known to be opposed to legal abortion/Roe, there is zero chance of confirmation. I hope that this candidate is strongly pro-life and that her silence on this point in the past will allow her to be confirmed now. I think a previously-unrecognized pro life candidate, as a practical matter, is more valuable than an openly pro-life one who is rejected by the Senate. The point is to get a pro-life Justice not just nominated, but confirmed, after all. And while I agree with you also that "no one respects a coward," I just can't put this down to cowardice until we know that this nominee is not as conservative as we hope she will be. It is possible that President Bush has made a selection who will, as a Justice, uphold conservative principles. No question that this uncertainty is extraordinarily frustrating, but remember the outcome isn't yet known.

1. I take it you disagree with the "incorporation" idea. So, am I safe in assuming you have no problem with a state or local government establishing a state religion, state run media, a state police that conducts searches and seizures without a warrant, etc. I'm truly interested in how you think this is workable. 2. If my assumption in #1 is correct, doesn't this really mean that all of our personal liberties are derived from the state? I realize we've gotten far off the track of our original discussion, but I'm curious what you think about these things.

I originally wasn't going to respond to this. I feel like I'm talking to my father. I'm asked questions, and I attempt to respond honestly, and with great thought. Instead of you responding to what I've said, you just ask more questions. Like I said, it's like talking to my dad; it's an interrogation.

I do disagree with the "incorporation idea". If you look at the debates that centered around the 14th amendment, it's obvious that's not what was intended. I have no problem with state religions. It embodies the spirit of federalism we supposedly embrace. They were in existence at the founding of this country, and continued up through the 19th century, in keeping with the US Constituion. I believe tithing was forced in some cases. Surely this isn't a secret.

State run media? We already have that. States issue press releases just like anyone else. You'll have to be much more specific. What state are you in? Does your state constitution guarantee a right to free speech? Mine does. Article I, Section 9 of the Idaho Constitution says:

"SECTION 9. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

Search and seizure is a different amendment, that AFAIK, relates to an absolute right. Unless your copy of the Bill of rights reads differently than mine, there is no specific prohibition on Congress in the 4th amendment; it applies to the powers of government in general. No incorporation is needed. It's an affirmation of an absolute right that is associated with the unalienable rights outlined in the Declaration. Same goes with the 2nd amendment.

Certainly, you don't believe that State governments, regardless of their own constitutions, can ban the possession of firearms, do you?

It's based on an unalienable right. It's not just a federal restriction.

No, your number 2 is ridiculous. The bill of rights does not grant rights, it restricts government. I don't know how you conclude that personal liberties are derived from the state. Personal liberties are derived from our Creator.

Again, as I have said earlier, you must believe that the founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment in error. Although they referred to Congress, you must believe that they either really meant for it to all levels of government, or you believe they were wrong about applying it to only Congress.

It's a lot easier when the truth is about someone other than your guy, isn't it. It's "Go Ann!" when she charges the enemy camp until your own, right. Ann isn't the problem here. The truth is the problem.. Ann just seems to be the target attached to it.

Some of us out here prefer results to blind loyalty. And some of us out here tend to call a spade a spade, even if it points the finger at ourselves. Hint: that's called honesty rather than Hipocrisy. We've had enough Hypocrisy from the Dims. I, for one, am not about to put up with it from others just because they're "not dims". Coulter is right on. She is doing what she's always done. She comments and gives her point of view. Some are just too childish and ignorant to understand that Politics ain't about a popularity contest. And what gives them away, often, is their popularity contest attitudes.. 'If She's for me, she's an angel. If She's against me she's the devil.' Seems to me all you Bushbots are projecting.

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.