[dirtboy]

Questioned about Harriet Miers, Bush's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Scalia said he had never met her. "Never having met her, I have no impression of her," he said.

Imagine that. Scalia knows nothing of her, so he won't pass judgement.

Too bad so many others lack his restraint.

[rdb3]

Imagine that. Scalia knows nothing of her, so he won't pass judgement.

It's like Scalia took the words right out of my mouth.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[satchmodog9]

You said it.

[newzjunkey]

She's applying for a job. She won't tell us anything in the hearings since that is the "ethical" thing. It's the Ginsburg rule. You cannot have an unknown in such a position.

I don't need to meet her. I know all I need to know (by virtue of not knowing anything) that she is the wrong person at the wrong time for SCOTUS.

You're attempting to draw an equivalence where one cannot be fairly drawn.

Nice try but it won't fly.

[Cboldt]

Imagine that. Scalia knows nothing of her, so he won't pass judgement.
Too bad so many others lack his restraint.

The question "What do you think of the nominee?" is differnet from the question "What do you think of the nomination?"

I don't know (and give the benefit of the doubt to) the nominee, due to stealth. I am SERIOUSLY put off by the nomination, due to "stealth", a credible charge of cronyism, and aversion to conservative advocacy (probably the same thing as "stealth")

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Good grief, when did you become a Bushbot? The point is precisely that we cannot pass judgment on her. THAT IS THE POINT!

[Blowtorch]

Scalia knows that it would be improper and out of his place to pass his opinion on a Presidential nominee to the press, no matter who the nominee or what his opinion was. The "I have no impression of her" doesn't mean anything and is not valid in the manner you are trying using it.