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."
I'm not certain your factual claim is correct, but let's assume it is. Why would it invalidate Levin's current criticisms of this nomination? If I fail to pick a winning hand one time, does that mean I never will?
well resolve to do so henceforth. no one is making you behave uncivilly. all anyone can do is maintain their own discourse civilly and not lower themselves to the level of someone who behaves abominably that they happen to disagree with. i know you were raised better ; )
"Golly---you know SO MUCH more than our President who has worked with Harriet on a personal level for more than ten years...gee whiz...you are just amazing...you KNOW that Harriet is not qualified, event though this attorney was the lead person in the WH for the vetting and nomination of all of the judges President Bush has nominated, INCLUDING Judge Roberts. 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!"
Yeah, it's the side against the Harriet Miers nomination that's hysterical. [ \ sarcasm ]
David Souter, like Traitor Jeffords, was from New England, the home of homosexual marriage.
I'm not interested in whether or not she's a conservative. Legislating from the bench means letting your political views influence how you decide a case, right? It doesn't mean "doing something that will make conservatives angry with you". I'm interested in whether or not she's a constructionist. It's either in the constitution or it isn't.
Simply because I trust a person does not mean that trust is not contingent upon a number of factors.
I don't see the point in trusting people without making any commensurate demands on their part.
What every good boy lives for: a kind word from his mommy. ;)
Ronald Reagan. "Trust but verify."
If you think Bush 41 was a better president, then you're the one who's not a conservative.
OK, I believe you.
Legislating from the bench means letting your political views influence how you decide a case, right? It doesn't mean "doing something that will make conservatives angry with you". I'm interested in whether or not she's a constructionist. It's either in the constitution or it isn't.
So, how will hearings let you know if she's a "constructionist," and how does "constructionism" differ from conservatism?
and i bet even you, mappy, underneath it all, are really NOT a patronizing little so and so. shapka agrees with me that one can disagree, and still maintain civil discourse. mommy doesn't approve of your insolent, yet endearing tone : )
And I don't think voting for him entitles you to anything. A vote is not and was never intended to be something people could hold over a president's head and scream "You owe me!" The election is over now and President Bush is in charge. If you don't like that, you shouldn't have voted for him.
Exactly! Trust is like power: it doesn't exist in a vacuum, it has to be based on something. Trust that is based on blind obedience is no trust at all, as all tyrants know in their hearts.
I'm not saying it will or not. I wasn't all that thrilled about John Roberts until I saw his confirmation hearings so all I'm saying is I'm willing to wait and see. Either way, I don't really have much choice in the matter.
You didn't like Reagan Vice President, Bush the elder? Why? He pissed me off with his "Read My Lips" thing, but otherwise I thought he was a very good president, much better then his "what me worry" son.
"Trust that is based on blind obedience is no trust at all, as all tyrants know in their hearts."
Was that off the cuff? Very eloquent.
[Making puppy dog eyes] I didn't know I was being a "patronizing little so and so," mommy...[whimper!]...I didn't mean to be "insolent"...[sniff! sniff!]...I'll try to be a good boy...! ;)
Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor, right? And Kennedy?
Hi, DIJV.. Long time no see around FR. Hope all is well with you and yours....
revealing.
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.