But now Ann won't STFU and toe the Party Line behind Miers' nomination so she's a mean-spirited, hateful, and evidently shark-jumping, unattractive woman.
Posted on 10/12/2005 4:16:22 PM PDT by goldstategop
Now that's a sexist comment!
Next time we should go look for a Republican presidential candidate in the Bowery. So long as he passes for the right age, he's qualified. RIGHT?
Ann nails it again. Miers isn't fit to sit on the Supreme Court and Ann lays out the reasons expertly.
LOL
Oh, for heaven's sake, be quiet Ann. You sound stupid.
Take your complaints about Republican condescension to women to Sec. Rice.
It's very sad.
I too am a big believer that test scores don't equal intelligence--but on the other hand they do correlate. The probability that a stupider person scored higher on the test is not very high; considering that 90% of Harvard students score higher, what percentage of Harvard students are dumber? A high or a low percentage?
In fact maybe Teddy should be the nominee, he has a Harvard law degree.
Well, smarts are necessary, but not sufficient. Lots of freepers are making the same fallacy in reverse: since so many smart people would be rotten justices, what we need is a dummy. (Yes, I'm exaggerating. Slightly.)
Maybe we should add an amendment to the constitution, that only Ivy League law graduates should be allowed on the court.
I'd be all for a constitutional genius with no formal education at all. You're working "elitism" back in subtly, by pretending that an ivy league degree is synonymous with intelligence. It isn't, though again it does correlate.
Amen.
I was just thinking.... what if Bush does know that Harriet Miers is gonna be a gun-toting, bible reading, Christian who will not delegate from the bench.... and just suppose that Ann and the other uber-conservatives that "hate" her... are spreading their hate as "misinformation" in order to get her in easier.
It's like when Shumer/Kennedy/McCain/Pelosi/Chaffee approve of somebody.... they automatically have 2 strikes against them in my book...
All I'm saying is that I trust Bush. He's given me no reason to think he's gone all wobbly in the jock strap for this nominee.
The lady has street credibility with me because she' been around Bush long enough to make mistakes (no fatal ones and none that we can find) and hasn't leaked, lied, stabbed in the back, or otherwise sold out when she's had ample opportunity to do so as an attorney in the Texas legal snake pit.
The other thing I like about her is that she's packed a .45 pistol. Not a .38, not a "neena" (9mm), not a .380 but a weapon that tends to "not wound" a man if shot with one.
She runs out in the dust with the president on jogs, she's not a prig for a born again Christian (unlike the "look at me at church" Clintons)and she hasn't got the Botox look like Pelosi,Clinton,(insert media savvy women).
I think Bush has said what he means to do with the court, the war on terror, taxes and other issues ;and tried to deliver on those promises.
I like Ann. If I were single and had the opportunity, I think a nice 4 hour dinner with wine and conversation would be a most excellent evening...... of course that's only my opinion... and I could be wrong.
Ann missed the bit about Miers being the managing partner of the largest law firm in Dallas. Just an oversight I'm sure. Ann, dear, slam Miers all you want, but don't be so crudely selective in the facts you select that it makes one wince, about something we all know about anyway. Don't be a b-itch Ann.
How do you know that? There's been only one ruling from the Roberts Court so far.
But now Ann won't STFU and toe the Party Line behind Miers' nomination so she's a mean-spirited, hateful, and evidently shark-jumping, unattractive woman.
She doesn't think the "average" college alum is subpar, she simply thinks that the average college alum with no experience in constitutional law shouldn't sit on the Supreme Court, and I whole-heartedly agree! The fact that she went to SMU Law School doesn't disqualify her by any means, and I think Coulter agrees with that. What it does mean is that, absent other spectacular achievements or experience (which Miers doesn't have), she is not qualified for the Court.
I haven't heard Miers attacking anyone yet, but perhaps I just missed it.
Well, her book just came out in paperback and this is a great way to build name recognition, sell a few more copies.
Finally! And a nice collection as well!
So says a middle aged man who should know better! ;-)
Not necessarily Ivy, but both Chicago and UVA are considered top tier law schools, plus UCLA and Texas, and maybe even Tulane are generally considered good enough to be top 25 ... SMU may not even make the cut for the top 50.
And it's not just the school, it's also the resume that demonstrates a superior qualification for a seat on the USSC ... or lack thereof.
There are tens thousands of successful corporate attorneys, senior partners of big city law firms, senior public sector attorneys in the Federal and State governments etc. out there with a resume that probably look alot like Miers' (it's just that not all of them happen to be long time personal friend of the the POTUS and has a White House staff job) ... so what exactly is Miers' qualification for the SCOTUS over any of these folks?
Yup. And, I for one am going to really enjoy the moment their bank accounts reveal this truth.
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.