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."
The people who supported President Bush, and wanted to have a moniker that demonstrated their affiliation.
Insofar as it denotes a healthy admiration for President Bush-in spite of the contempt of condescending liberal elites-that's fine.
However, when it becomes a justification for excusing bad decisions that's where I part company with you folks.
oh and i find you equally endearing, mappy, believe me.
I want to see the confirmation hearings.
If the goal was to replace Rehnquist with someone equal in background, Miers does not fit the bill.
Rehnquist had extensive Supreme Court experience (and was well applied to constitutional law) by serving as a SCOTUS law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson. Modern-day law clerks write most of the opinions for the justices, as Rehnquist pointed out in his book. As a law clerk, Rhenquist was not merely an inside observer and apprentice to the Court, but also a behind-the-scenes participant. Rehnquist had a depth of background and experience with constitutional law not matched by Miers.
Nearly all nominees to the highest bench who have lacked judicial experience held notable positions in either government (such as U.S. Attorney General or Governor) or academia. They must be proven in some public way to have the understanding worthy of the bench. This is, after all, a public process and public position. There must be a public record.
That aside, a better rebuttal to the argument that Miers was chosen because of her lack of experience is to look at the times we live in. The Supreme Court has changed. Thanks to outrageous unconstitutional decisions from Sandra Day O'Connor and the like, the Court is now a political body, uncontrollably trumping all legislative and executive branches in the country.
Judges today must therefore be chosen with EXTREME caution. They must be well-proven in their judicial understanding. The Senate cannot simply rely on someone's assurance that some stealth pick is the best choice. There should be no doubt in their minds that this judge would turn the tide of the court back to its original purpose.
Yesterday's wait-and-see approach is not good enough. No longer can gambles be made with SCOTUS appointees. Our future as a nation is at stake.
Like I haven't seen people called "Bush Bot" about ten thousand times around here. THAT was my point, and I posted it to someone who keeps flinging that one around.
The streets on FreeRepublic are two-way. Too bad for you guys, huh?
And by the way, I do hate Clinton, and being called a Clinton Hater would only encourage me. Don't tell me that ever bothered you.
My name is really irrelevant. There are a lot of people on this forum with names relating to the president. My name is not "isupportpresidentbushandeverythinghedoes".
And that will tell you if she's a conservative? How?
Didn't Mark Levin have something to do with recommending O'Connor and Kennedy while working in the Reagan Administration? If he was wrong about them why would his judgment be any better now concerning the current SC pick?
Since you asked, I would prefer that you use no epithet at all. Are you capable of disagreeing and stating your case without being disagreeable?
Yeah if I bolded your posts and made them ten times bigger, you'd look hysterical too.
which folks? i am neither a DUmmy or a bushbot, so i am not quite sure who you are referring to as if i were a part of some group, other than just the group of Freepers that post on this forum. the lack of civility in this debate is coming from both sides. when someone complained about the term BUSH-HATER and likened it to what was used during the clinton era, i merely pointed out that there is denigrating terminology being used by both sides.
Well since I do not think Bush is a conservative then the "trust me" stuff doesn't hunt either. Bush looks like a socially conservative democrat to me. So I don't trust him. I think Bush the elder was a much better president
No more than being called a "Bush hater" does. Characterizing criticism of an elected official as "hatred" is no way to win an argument on policy in any event.
Personally, I wish this debate had been avoided altogether, but I suppose if it was necessary that we could have conducted it in a more civil fashion.
Hey I don't mean to be mean, sorry.
But you just said you trusted him when you voted for him. Either you trust him or you don't but if he'd already earned you trust, why does he have to earn it again?
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.