[goldstategop]

That's her point - Ruth Bader Ginsburg has superb legal qualifications. Harriet Miers has none unless you count her friendship with the President and her sex. There's already a woman on the court. Did we need a quota pick? I know the answer to that question. I believe in merit and excellence. Miers may be a lovely and talented woman but what we've learned in two weeks is she doesn't have the resume to sit on our nation's highest court. Not alongside Ginsburg.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[jwalsh07]

That's her point - Ruth Bader Ginsburg has superb legal qualifications.

The only point made here by Ann is an inadvertent one, that being that the superb qualifications of Ruth Bader Ginsburg have absolutely no correlation to the ability to read and understand the Constitution of the United States.

My barber understands that when the constitution says that private property may only be taken for public use, it means just that. The superbly educated Ginsburg peers at the takings clause and finds it doesn't mean what it says it means what superbly educated assholes want it say.

[WOSG]

"That's her point - Ruth Bader Ginsburg has superb legal qualifications. Harriet Miers has none unless you count her friendship with the President and her sex. There's already a woman on the court"

So is Coulter's point that if the nomination were down to picking one of Ginsburg and Miers ... Coulter would prefer GINSBURG?!?

I should hope NOT. Which puncturees her whole argument.

"I believe in merit and excellence."

I do too.
There is more merit and excellence in finding a judge who know his/her proper role and is a non-activist, than in finding a judge who went to a top law school.

[danmar]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has superb legal qualifications. Harriet Miers has none

I can care less for your superb qualified ultraLIBERAL Ginsburg undermining the Constitution at every step.
Give me one example were she followed the Constitution in her decisions!

OTOH having a non Harvard educated lady, superbly unqualified as the Constitution goes, I will be more inclined to believe that Ms.Miers will follow the Constitution guide lines by the book, because she has no experience and will take everything by the face value.(MO mind you)

Just give this Lady her time to prove her self on the hearings and than judge her.
What happened to "innocent before proven guilty?" ...

Boy, we Republicans know how to kill our own and screw up things...it never fails.

P.S.

See also my tag line...

[petitfour]

By Ann's standards, Hillary Clinton is looking like a pretty good nominee. She's run the country before as well.

[shhrubbery!]

That's her point - Ruth Bader Ginsburg has superb legal qualifications... I believe in merit and excellence. Miers ... doesn't have the resume to sit on our nation's highest court. Not alongside Ginsburg.

Who gives a fig about Ginsburg or her so-called qualifications? Nobody. Not even liberals quote Ginsburg's opinons.

And what exactly does a 'superb' standing in law school mean, anyway? That she could grind away at stupifyingly boring law books, better than anyone else.

Don't forget, Hitlary had 'merit' and 'excellence' at Yale Law too, by those standards.

And Sandra Day O'Connor was second in her class at Stanford (Rehnquist was first).

Yeah, we need someone 'superbly' qualified like O'Connor again. /sarc