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."
Some of you are saying she has no paper trail and that disqualifies her.
You are saying there is some evidence that she is not a Scalia or Thomas.
Can't you see how foolish your side in this argument is?
So your problem with her is what? That she didn't go to Harvard or Yale?
The issues is twofold, one cronyism, Miers would not be on anybody short list, but for her proxminity to Presisdent Bush, it's his pick and if we wants to appoint a personel friend and subject she to the charge of being a crony oh well.
Second the pick is another stealh candidate after promising the base to only nominate conservatives. Now we get the second stealh canidate, maybe they are conservative, maybe not, Miers was until recently a democrat and supported Al Gore for president, voted for Jimmy C over RR, thinks the federalist society is a bunch of right wing activists, etc, etc, etc.
But even that is OK, what is NOT OK, is Bush black ballings any conservative with a conservative paper trail. Black balling our best and bravest so as to appease the Democrats that have no problem appointing ACLU lawyers.
The message to conservatives is don't write, don't fight, don't do a damn thing to advance the conservative agenda and maybe you'll have a shot at an appointment some day.
You've outted yourself now.
Which female, who has not been on a bench as a judge, would make you happy ?
Keep laughing. There is going to be a fight. Either Bush steps aside or joins the fray. The Category 5 that is brewing you are not going to like ... but it is necessary to move forward. Compromise is not the new strategery.
Marking for "See I told you so"
LOL......don't you hate it when that happens? And it never fails to happen on a thread that is a bazillon posts long, so you end up apolgoizing ALL day long.
I sometimes wish there was something we could go back and put on our posts that says "I WAS WRONG, SEE BELOW!"
Congratulations on your unparalleled capacity for deductive reasoning.
That question is properly posed to those in the Bush White House and those on this forum who are promoting Miers as an "evangelical Christian" (who, uh, attends an Episcopal church).
Exactly. Which includes the reality that we can't disagree with a decision until it's been made.
Sorry, jdm, but you're wrong. Perhaps you misunderstood the quote you highlighted in your post #5:
"Without mentioning the Bush nominee by name, the conservative legal icon (Scalia) 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."
Chief Justice Roberts served on the appeals bench before being tapped for the Supreme Court. Scalia goes on to say the following in the article:
"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."
Scalia is talking about Miers, who did not serve as a judge on any lower court. (BTW, neither did 31 other justices of the Supreme Court before they were nominated.)
Bill Kristol = elitist.
Not to mention her screed about "impeach Bush" on the Mike Rosen show. She was on Bill (terrorists are not cowards) Maher's show but I didn't have enough Phenergan to watch it.
One and the same.
You wouldn't have believed the vitriol spewed at him.
Too old.
Too sick.
Too close to Halliburton.
Too close to Nixon.
Too close to Ford.
Too everything.
Alas, they've used those same arguments year in and year out since then against/about "All Things Bush."
Go over to Common Dreams or TruthOut. They have plenty of reporting on it.
It's been made and you STILL are harping on it.
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.