To refer to the candidate as the President's legal secretary demonstrates a lack of class. As much as I've enjoyed her writing, I am disappointed in Ann Coulter's comments as you describe them. I think this candidate's judicial qualifications are certainly sufficient, and I don't believe in that "best and brightest" nonsense. Was it Bill Buckley who said he'd rather be governed by the first 100 names in the telephone book than the faculty of Harvard University? Not to mention how sick I got of "Bill Clinton, Rhodes Scholar" or "John Kerry is Smarter than George Bush." If that's the standard, then let's give them all written tests and the seat goes to the high score. I think you have to meet a certain academic standard, period. Then you look to other qualifications. I think you hit the nail on the head in the sense that stirring up controversy is good for Ann Coulter's bottom line. Unless she knows a lot more about this pick than has been reported, I just don't think she has the basis to make these statements. There may have been picks that would have given conservatives greater reassurance right off the bat, but I just don't think we know enough yet to say this nomination is the unmitigated disaster so many are claiming. Of course, a column called "Wait and See" wouldn't get Ann Coulter much media time.
You got it exactly. A lot more people in this country were not educated at Ivy League schools than were. And Ann Coulter makes her cash by being flamboyant and over the top. I like her, but lets face it, she wouldnt make money by being cautious.
Just curious, where did she get her law degree? Oh, and I think the lack of pictures here may warrant some serious soul searching. Rules are rules dammit!