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."
This is what I love about members of the George Bush personality cult, when presented with a lucid argument yall never disappoint me, bots always hurl insults! LOL, yall are you own worst enemies, you can't discuss, can't debate, all you can to is insult. LOL, how I love posting to kool-aid drinkers, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Why bother voting for him if you believe he would pick a Supreme Court justice out of spite? Your argument is irrational and hysterical.
I've been around long enough to remember the Clintonistas using the term "Clinton haters" to try to squelch criticism of Clintigula. How nice that you're taking a page from their hymnal.
I heard on Fox that in her years in DC, Miers has never gotten into that scene; I forget who was reporting, but he said that might be part of the reason Bush trusts her not to change.
Conceivably there may be duty things that they'd all have to go, but such an event would probably be large and the social obligation be only to put in an appearance. Though not being part of DC social scene myself, I can't speak authoritatively. ;-)
I never said you should assume she's on your side. Did I say I knew Miers was a conservative? Nope.
Gee....she must know NOTHING about what our PResident wants from a judge he nominates....nothing at all...just WISH our President had consulted with YOU!
oh and bushbot is a term of endearment? LOL!
You obviously don't know anything about me because anyone who does knows that I DON'T agree with President Bush on everything. And as far hurling insults, did you even think about your own post? It said absolutely nothing constructive.
David Souter, another stealth candidate, was brought to us by the "trust me" GOP, mainly Bush the elders chief of Staff and the very respected GOP senator from N.H. Souther makes the case for a nominating a well known conservative, thanks for bringing it up.
LOL...If that's the qualification, there're any number of FReepers currently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court!!!! ;)
In fact, I voted for him specifically for this purpose, i.e. to reshape the courts with a restrained, originalist intent.
You might say that I TRUSTED him.
Thank goodness I'll never make that mistake again.
The spite remark was not directed towards you so there is really no point in you refuting it.
No comparison whatsoever. POTUS knows Harriet Miers, personally and professionally.
That Souter stuff don't hunt.
Do you want to know?
If the label doesn't apply to you, then please don't take it personally. I'm just tired of people who generally support the President being called names all the time.
Let me guess your handle is I.LOVE.W but you are not a kool-aid drinking, personality cult bushbot, right? LOL, yall really crack me up. LOL.
Yeah, it's the side against the Harriet Miers nomination that's hysterical. [ \ sarcasm ]
Yes, certainly. You wouldn't want to make the mistake of trusting a man you trusted when you voted for him.
I know I shouldn't talk back, mommy, but...
some FReepers call themselves "bushbot" here---more'n one---and they seem to like themselves an awful lot, mommy...honest, mommy... ;)
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.