HANNITY: ....What if it turns out she is a steady, solid, consistent voting bloc, along with Scalia and Thomas? And what if she turns out to be an intellectual on a level — regarding the Constitution that you don't anticipate? Maybe something the president does know. Is there any possibility or any hope for you in that?
COULTER: No. And the reason I say that is, I mean, she does — there is a record there. I keep hearing people say, "Oh, let's wait and see."
She's a 60-year-old woman. We know what is in the record. We know what she's done. We know what she's accomplished. The day she was nominated, she was — her speeches were being played over and over again on C-SPAN. That's when I officially went on suicide watch.
And no. She is not an intellectual. She may be a very smart woman. And no, it wouldn't be enough if she just votes the right way.She also has to write with style? Here is the big difference between George W. Bush and Ann Coulter. Bush, as a former CEO, is trained to get results. Which usually is more productive, than philosophizing.
Case in point; when Senator Alan Simpson asked Robert Bork, during his 1987 confirmation hearing, why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, Bork replied:
I think it would be an intellectual feast just to be there and to read the briefs and discuss things with counsel and discuss things with my colleagues...
That (and a few other similarly bizarre responses) is why Bork did not get onto the Court. As despicable as the attacks on him by Teddy Kennedy and others were, they didn't resonate with the American public, and wouldn't have kept Bork off.
George W. Bush is also a very smart and accomplished fellow, and he's owed a few of his successes to his enemies underestimating him. Bush, with the Miers nomination, gave Harry Reid a 'be careful what you wish for, pal....' moment; a Justice who'll vote like Scalia and Thomas, but was recommended by the leader of the Democrats in the Senate.