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."
Well, of course you're right; so since we can never be POSITIVE about anything, let's just leave this seat open until 2008 and let the next president fill it, okay?
The TRUTH is EVERY PERSON KNOWN ON THAT LIST was MORE qualified.
I think you are being over the top here. Has Priscilla Owens been selected as one of the top 50 lawyers in American. If not, your statement is a lie.
You're right about that.
OMG, Scalia's dead too?
(Sarcasm)
:0)
I think Scalia voted against pornography.
No problem.
Have a good day.
um......I mean Rehnquist's death.
cough cough
Heaven help us when Scalia goes! I hope he lives to 95.
oops
Oh, there are not many others who are far better qualified?
Don't know to tell you the truth. But if there were, they either could not be vetted, could not get approved, and were definitely NOT NOMINATED.
So when do private Social Security accounts go into effect?
A most excellent observation.
Some days, I wonder where all the grown ups have gone.
You haven't been here long enough to know that we go through these cycles periodically.
You should have been here the day Bush picked Cheney as his VP; it was actually worse than this.
Has there ever been a nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court whose views were so indecipherable, in combination with such a paucity of public records by which to judge her suitability for this position?
It's not condescending at all; it's a fact; she has grown and it sounds like you're still demanding something from the 1950's.
When will you all ever understand that we aren't a party in a glass bowl; we have to work with OTHERS.
**Debating, disagreement shouldn't be reduced to such nastiness, disrespect.**
Well, look who's talking. I don't think I've ever seen such nastiness and disrespect from someone who claims to dislike both.
Wrong and you are helping to make it wrong. Here's how it will go:
Democrats will demand all the documents Miers handled in her 5 years in the White House.
Bush will refuse.
Democrats will vote FOR HER because the Conservatives oppose her.
A handful of dissatisfied Republicans will waste their votes and Miers will be approved.
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.