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."
He was talking about a hypothetical situation under which someone like Miers would be nominated for the Supreme Court.
Did you Bush Bots actually believe that Antonin Scalia-a sitting justice-would publicly criticize the president's choice, let alone come forward with a full-throated denunciation of her?
How delusional can you get?
It is NOT a good thing.
If you live to say "I told you so," it' no wonder you're so miserable all the time.
The only ones in hysteria are the ones violently opposed to Miers. I'm not ecstatic about her nomination but all this hypocrisy is irritating. How can so many people who claimed to be opposed to having libs ask Roberts about his positions on issues now be in such hysteria because we don't know Miers' positions?
"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."
Excellent point.
Do you want a constructionist or a conservative? Because President Bush never said he'd nominate a conservative, he said he'd nominate a constructionist. It's not his fault that you can't seem to pay attention.
What people forget is that ALL USSC cases are appeals.
ALL law books contain APPEALS.
EVERY SINGLE lawyer is SUPPOSED to be able to teach a class on any core aspect of law. This INCLUDES constitutional law.
I think much of the objection is that they "King's Courtiers" feel slighted that they are exposed as not having the kings ear after all.
Seriously ALL levels of judicial nomination are who do you know. ALL OF THEM. If you don't have buddies on the judicial qualifications pannel, if you don't have insiders during any state or federal vetting process, you are not going to be a judge.
This is just a game of Cowboys vs Pundits.
I'm not sure its funny, but rather sad. I'm upset about all the uproar and division in this party right now and sickened by the fact democrats are standing by gleefully watching us implode, licking their chops.
OMG - STOP IT!! YOU'RE KILLIN' ME!! OH MY SIDES...
Because she's supposed to be one of us? Because we were promised a Scalia or Thomas by Bush? Because we're just supposed to take on faith Bush's assurances that he knows her and we can trust her? That's not "hypocrisy"---that's prudence.
I guess it depends on where you sit.
I see an awful lot of hysteria by those who claim Bush is a genius and resort to immediately denigrate yesterday's heros who dare question that genius.
Apparently some think the Miers nomination is radioactive as well.
What makes you so convinced that she's not one of us if you don't know anything about her?
We trusted the Pundits in the past with Souter and O'Connor.
This is no different. Then the pundits had a trail they could used to snowjob the public.
it is a question of who would you rather trust:
Cowboys or Pundits.
Personally, I think the pundits have been going to too many DC Cocktail parties.
Here's a hint, sometimes public criticism-even of our leaders-is a healthy, productive exercise.
Yeah, right. A "hypothetical situation" that happens to have a real-world example currently going throught the nomination process right now. Get real.
And while you're at it, drop the trite cliche "Bush Bot." Use of stale, hackneyed characterizations does you no favors.
The message to everyone is the meritocracy takes a back seat to cronyism.
And inviting howls of derision, I will predict that it becomes a major issue as history judges this President.
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.