SCOTUS : Ann Coulter doesn't like the new nominee

Discussion in 'Politics' started by John Ellwood Taylor, Jul 20, 2005.

  1. John Ellwood Taylor

    John Ellwood Taylor
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Discuss:

    http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=66

    SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING
    by Ann Coulter
    July 20, 2005

    After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

    So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry fFynt's attorney.

    But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

    Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be. Will he let us vote?

    Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "women folk"?

    Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them “constitutional rights.”

    It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.

    The only way a supreme court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial birth one.

    It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

    “In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”

    This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."

    And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter.

    I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

    From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

    “In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

    I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

    Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform, which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress). But now apparently Republicans want to pretend the Party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism too.

    Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

    By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.

    It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart.

    If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

    Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.

    If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!

    We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections — seven of the last ten!

    We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?

    Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.

    Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don’t hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to lifetime sinecures on the High Court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.

    As I’ve said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals’ rights, and property rights –liberals wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented “constitutional” rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It’s always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy, and atheism and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.

    During the “filibuster” fracas, one lonely voice in the woods
    admonished Republicans: “Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are ‘extreme.’" Republicans ignored this advice, spent the next several weeks arguing about the history of the filibuster, and lost the fight.

    Now we come to find out from last Sunday’s New York Times — the enemy’s own playbook! — that the Democrats actually took polls and determined that they could not defeat Bush’s conservative judicial nominees on ideological grounds. They could win majority support only if they argued turgid procedural points.

    That’s why the entire nation had to be bored to death with arguments about the filibuster earlier this year.

    The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over.

    And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.

    Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.
     
  2. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    She is right, "Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives." We will have to just wait and see if he first gets confirmed and then if he is the conservative Bush says he is. This is a descision that will affect America for the next 30+ years!
     
  3. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Coulter is so far right that Patrick Buchanan is a flaming liberal from her perspective.
     
  4. Kiffen

    Kiffen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Coulter makes some excellent points. Let US hope she is wrong!!!!
     
  5. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to disagree with you here. There are very few folks short of neo-nazis and klan members to the right of Buchannan. I also don't think she is an isolationist like he is. JMO.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    I gather Ms. Coulter doesn't like the pick. ;)
     
  7. Pronto

    Pronto
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did she say who she wanted?
     
  8. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Anyone named Johnny G. Bob Junior can't be all bad!
     
  10. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    She's actually funny. I never would have guessed.

     
  11. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    I should mention that the nominee grew up in an exclusive beach area of Lake Michigan because his father was an executive at a Gary, Indiana, steel mill.
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a question: Does Ann Coulter like anyone? :confused:

    She is right about what it would take for NARAL and the leftists to like Roberts.
     
  14. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, she claims to have liked Joe McCarthy...and I get the idea that she is very fond of her own self.
     
  15. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    She does make some excellent points. I have been very nervous about him, too, and then to learn, if Coulter is right, that NARAL attacked Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy, was disturbing. I've taken some encouragement that a lot of social conservatives are behind the nomination, but I've also wondered if that is just closing ranks with the President to maintain a unified front against the Left. I've also thought about the point about him representing his client. It's his job, in that position, to make the best possible argument in support of his client. The footnoted comment makes that clear.

    What I want to know is what he has written in law reviews and elsewhere. Michael McConnell has written a lot and his views are pretty well known and I would be excited about his selection.

    We conservatives will look pretty silly five years from now if Roberts turns up voting like Souter after we supported him. Coulter is right--the Left is going to fight Bush no matter whom he picks so why not make it someone worth his supporters fighting for. Even if it turns out that he votes and argues conservative on the Court I'm very disappointed in the President for picking and asking his supporters to back him up on a stealth candidate. Court picks, and especially SCOTUS, is one of the reasons so many of us have been supportive of the President, aside from the war.
     
  16. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Senator Hillary Clinton has confided to associates that she intends to vote FOR Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

    Unless some unforeseen development occurs around Roberts, Clinton will throw her support behind confirmation, says a top source.

    "Look, we're not thrilled President Bush is in office and gets to make these choices," said a top Hillary source, "but we have to make the best of the situation until the next election!"

    With her support of Roberts, Clinton ignores pressure from the reactionary-activist wing of the Democrat party.

    "She is simply doing what is right for the country, not MOVEON.ORG," the Clinton insider explained.

    <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3hcr.htm" target="_blank">
    Developing...</a>
     
  17. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    JG,

    Of course, another way to read that is that she is trying to make herself more appealing to the center or even, if there are some REAL idiots out there, the right, but yes, the smart bet is to be concerned about any nominee that Hillary would support. Now if Schumer jumps on board with her, then we'll KNOW we're in trouble.
     
  18. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Without knowing much about Roberts, it's hard to say if this is Hillary trying to attract the moderate voters in 2008, or if she is really giving her approval because like the stealth nominees in the past, this nominee is one that the liberals will be proud of.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem with Coulter is that she is so far to the right she makes Rush Limbaugh look like a die hard liberal democrat.

    I don't think Coulter speak for most mainline conservatives. Agreeing with her sometimes, sure. But speaking for them, absolutely not. She only speaks for the hyperconservatives, which is far from mainline conservatism.
     
  20. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, what is Coulter so far to the right on? I know the first response will be her defense of McCarthy, but I think readers will find her points about him in Treason arguable. The Left has shut the historical debate down on McCarthy, though Buckley and Bozell's book (I'm sorry I don't recall the name of it right now) about him should have at least left that debate open, and the last I heard no one was accusing William F. Buckley of being a hyperconservative.

    Treason is the only book of hers that I've read, and I can't stand to watch her in a debate, because she comes across as a smart aleck teenager without substance, but I've not seen anything that puts her in the "unreasonable" category.
     

Share This Page

Loading...