Posted on 10/09/2005 9:10:09 AM PDT by Crackingham
In an interview set for broadcast on Monday, leading conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears to be defending Harriet Miers against critics who say she doesn't have the qualifications to sit on the High Court.
"I think it's a good thing to have people from all sorts of backgrounds [on the Court]," Scalia tells CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, as the debate rages over Miers' lack of judical experience.
Without mentioning the Bush nominee by name, the conservative legal icon said that the High Court needed someone who had never served as a judge to take the place of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
"There is now nobody with that [non judicial] background after the death of the previous chief," Scalia laments to Bartiromo.
"And the reason that's happened, I think, is that the nomination and confirmation process has become so controversial, so politicized that I think a president does not want to give the opposition an easy excuse [to say] 'Well, this person has no judicial experience.'" Scalia concludes: "I don't think that's a good thing. I think the Byron Whites, the Lewis Powells and the Bill Rehnquists have contributed to the court even though they didn't sit on a lower federal court."
yeah, well it pays to read the entire piece before opening one's mouth, i guess... ; ) in any event, i salute you for being open about your misunderstanding and not trying to bluster.
That's what I thought, too, at first.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499418/posts?page=22#22
But I'll refrain from saying any more, at least right now. Any more from me right now would be a case of....
PRay for W and Harriet Miers
ping!
"yeah, well it pays to read the entire piece before opening one's mouth."
I did read the entire piece before commenting -- the problem was that I misinterpreted the context.
"I think it's a good thing to have people from all sorts of backgrounds [on the Court]," Scalia tells CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, as the debate rages over Miers' lack of judical experience.
Notice he didn't mention Miers by name.
Don't be coy, Tony. Is Miers qualified or not? Are all people without judicial experience "fungible"---is one as good as another?
Another point: Scalia loses nothing by these statements. If---God forbid---Miers is confirmed, he has her good will. If she isn't, he has Bush's good will. A win-win for Scalia. *YAWN!*
Sitting justices aren't going to say anything critical of nominees, period. They may have to work with that person the rest of their lives.
Incredible, isn't it? They'll do anything to explain this away, including deliberately misunderstanding it.
Sheesh.
You've been such a know-it-all about this, why don't YOU provide ANY link and/or news article where ANY sitting Supreme Court judge has EVER commented on the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee?
We can all wait while you find them, since I'm sure you have them, making such a declarative statrment as that, right? I mean, you wouldn't try to mislead anybody would you?
Let's have it, Map.
They're like those aliens who invaded Earth in Independance Day.
If you watched "Meet the Press" this morning, they would sound familiar. Russert broadcast the clip from Bartiromo's interview of Scalia.
A few points. Scalia was talking about Miers, not Roberts. My reference (not Scalia's) to her as a replacement for "Chief Justice Rehnquist" was intended only to fully identify Rehnquist.
When Scalia says: "There is now nobody with that background after the death of the previous chief" - he means somebody like Rehnquist, with no judicial expperience. His subsequent comments referencing Rehnquist, Powell and White make this amply clear.
And while Scalia didn't specifically mention Miers, I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest Scalia didn't have Miers in mind when he's rebutting one of the primary arguments against her in the midst of the raging firestorm over her nomination.
In fact, it would be totally inappropriate for a sitting Justice to comment on the qualifications of a specific nominee by name - so Scalia was probably being as specific as circumstances allow.
For those curious about when this was taped, Russert said Bartimoro sat down with Scalia Saturday night.
Oh, there are not many others who are far better qualified?
You're welcome.
The post was suggesting that Bush supporters are unwilling to hear the facts here, when in reality, it's the other way around.
It wasn't intended to insult you. I knew that right away. It was intended to insult people like me.
Nothing personal, but maybe you need another cup of coffee. It doesn't seem as though you're grasping what anybody means today. ; )
The subject of our disagreement, IS her nomination.
There should be no confusion, Roberts is no longer a nominee.
Since when is the truth disengenuous?
It's done.
I totally agree about Ann Coulter. She discredits herself with her constant angry chiding.
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.