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."
Scalia just said the SC doesn't need a Scalia. It needs a Miers. Don't you trust his judgement?
"Stellardendrite: Isnt this hilarious? The same people that want to discount EVERYONE else (ie the pundits like Limbaugh, Levin, etc) --because "BUSH KNOWS HER", are the same people who run right over here and cheer on Scalia, who DOESNT. So which is it?
MCGavin999:How do you know he doesn't?"
"Scalia also declined to comment on Bush's nomination of the inexperienced Harriet Miers to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor on the court.
"Never having met her, I have no impression of her," Scalia said of the president's lawyer."
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/55057.htm
Why do you believe that - because you do?
What is so difficult about requiring that we know who a person is before we endow that individual with a degree of power that is almost inconceivable to the rest the rest of us ?
You're convinced that you know for sure something about someone you don't know anything about? Hmm...okay.
Supreme Court Justice and the President's Counsel? Come-on?
"Yep, newbie, no confusion."
Yup, "fuzzy math". No confusion.
So now you can read minds? That's a neat trick. Can you teach me how to do that?
Indeed.
Obviously, the Republican Party isn't getting it done, as they continue to grow Big Stupid Government and stomp on the founding principles of our country.
As opposed to taking recommendations of a stellar judge and ending up with David Souter ...
YOU'VE FOUND ME OUT!
Yup. Me too.
'59 grunt.
Why not? Does Bush have some kind of overwhelming desire to keep getting his ass kicked for idiotic choices?
Except for the minor detail that Roberts was a circuit court judge - thus completely obviating his main point, if you believe your own post.
No, I'm convinced that I shouldn't assume a person is on my side if I don't know anything about that person. Do you "get" it now?
"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."
Damn, you just hit a home run with this post.
"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."
Well, we know Harriet Miers thinks Bush is a genius-- David Frum said she goes around saying he's the most brilliant man she ever met (Check NRO).
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.