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."
Probably the bolded clause of the sentence above.
That's what makes us so "convinced."
Your reply proves once and for all that you're ill-informed and can be ignored.
It is properly posed to the current nominee.
There's nothing wrong with criticism but I've seen a lot of people on this forum who are ready to call out the firing squad because President Bush didn't bother to consult with them before he made his choice.
How would you like me to describe a group of individuals that does not gainsay the words or deeds of someone, regardless of their consequences?
"What makes you so convinced that she's not one of us if you don't know anything about her?"
There's little in the way of information to prove she is conservative. Therefore, in order for me to be convinced that she is a solid conservative I'd have to "guess" or "trust" that she is. That's not good enough, I'm afraid.
Yep, newbie, no confusion.
Define "us"
And then tell me you ever want to appear before a judge who is one of "us". Particularly when you don't know if "us" includes you.
It is a sad fact that the nation has moved so far from the founders vision that the constitution is all but null and voided. Some of us would like to arrest the slide into tyranny that is well under way. Others appear to be members of the George Bush (can do no wrong) personality cult. If you are a conservative then appointing stealth/crony to the supreme court would upset you. Particularly when there are many many many good conservative candidates available.
One theory gaining popularity is that Bush wanted to spit in the eye of conservatives that undermined support for Gonzolas (another crony) just to piss them off. Mission accomplished W, you managed to split the GOP base and piss off most conservatives, way to go!
That didn't make any sense.
And you Bush-Haters believe that he would rip her to shreds like you have been, if only he could. It's just that he didn't.
And we're the delusional ones. Okey dokey.
The fact that I don't know anything about her. Why is that so difficult for you folks on the other side to understand?
In view of the fact that by all accounts neither is drawn to the DC social scene, I don't find it surprising at all.
I've seen plenty of information. You can discredit it if you wish to but I've seen enough to be willing to see what happens during the hearings.
There really isn't "evidence pointing to the contrary." That is the entire point. President Bush says he knows her and that we should trust him.
Is Robert Bork a pundit or a cowboy?
No, we trusted our Presidents on those. It's time we raised a ruckus before the nominations go to the Senate floor about what we know and don't know about nominees, even from our own guys, and never take on blind faith their assurances again.
If you truly believe that President Bush would nominate someone out of spite then I very much doubt that you have EVER supported him, in which case your entire argument would be completely irrelevant as there is nothing he could ever do that would make you happy.
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.