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."
"Yes, it is always easier to blame your mistakes on other people."
So it's Levin's fault that Kennedy lied and Levin didn't catch him?
Except that Roberts was a Judge.
And yet we have to settle for "stealth candidates." The elites---I mean the real elites: the ones that are stage-managing this nomination---must think there's no limit to the deception they can practice on the base.
If SCOTUS judges are simply supposed to be the best judges in the country, why not just induct the top of the class of the best law school every time?
Yes, it would be nice if there was a public record, and lacking that, the public does well to be skeptical. But the politics of the matter may require compromising this element. I'll gladly take a total unknown who votes right over the most public and outspoken figure, if he votes wrong.
No the Senate cannot just rely on someone's assurance. And yes I wish my Senator would insist on someone who will turn back the tide of leftist politics that has washed over our Court - no chance of that - I'm from Kalifornia.
So I don't disagree with the facts you state.
Though, perhaps being a bit of an optimist and even a Bush-Bot, I disagree with the temperment. What I have seen so far of Miers is encouraging.
"Except that Roberts was a Judge."
Got it. Thanks for the correction. I misinterpreted one sentence of the article and it threw me off.
hard to read people online, if you were truly engaging in banter then i apologize. there has been a fair amount of vitriol and lambasting going on. i have been here 7 years and been on the same and opposite sides as many posters here in a variety of debates. though i am not as worked up about the miers nomination as i perceive you to be (i was bitterly disappointed, don't get me wrong, but i have come to grips with what i see to be reality, unless she bombs and gets voted down, which is always possible) i am sure we see eye to eye on many different issues and i look forward to being on the same side as you in future debates : ) Peace, honeybunch.
Sorry. After I posted I saw a number of people had already pointed that out.
Oh, there is a limit. In fact it is addressed in your tag line. When the slow boiled frogs we call Americans will get to their limit is the bigger question.
Why didn't somebody know? After all, that's the whole argument about Miers, isn't it? Why didn't anyone mobilize against Kennedy because they didn't know whether or not he was conservative?
Because there are only 9 judges, and thousands od Law School grads every year? I mean I ain't no lawyer or anything, but I can do that math.
well at least you can be kind in debate, i've seen it all this week....people telling those opposed to miers are "ruining her life", saying they oppose her because she's christian, and finally-- claiming that we're undermining the war effort by questioning this pick.
Read the post carefully again and you'll discover the other non-judges nominated for SCOTUS had a LOOOOONG list of legal accomplishments other than simply an ivy league education. Rehnquist clerked on the court itself was deputy Attorney General of the U.S. Miers biggest claim to fame is chairing the Texas Lottery Commission.
See any difference?
The assumption or argument that I see from defenders of the nomination is that the pick was circumscribed by a need to satisfy the gang of 14. That the Senate is formally GOP, but as a practical matter, the GOP does not have a conservative majority.
So, in a word, "yes," they say. An openly conservative nominee would have resulted in a fight; and the fight would be lost. That is the admission.
And I'm sorry too if I gave offense. I am too much of a "smartass" at times, and you can quote me. I'll "lose" the "little boy" act from now on---it has got old. :)
">> So your problem with her is what? That she didn't go to Harvard or Yale? << <<"
OMG, the whole 'elitist' argument again.
Yup Janice Rogers Brown, NOT an ivy league elitist:
CSU undergrad, UCLA j.d., UVA master of laws
"Rebellion" against one "King George" is why we have our "Free Republic." ;)
there has been incredible incivility on your side of the debate as well, and that is all i am looking to have acknowledged. because i am more pragmatic and choose to just DEAL with this rather than do the woulda coulda shoulda that some need to engage in endlessly, doesn't mean i am a bushbot, drinking koolaid, enthralled with a cult of personality or wearing kneepads. both sides of the street could straighten up in the namecalling and belittling regard. : )
Maybe the fight would be lost, but that fight would expose the dems and rino's, and help the Conservative cause. Then, Bush simply sends up an even more Conservative nominee and tells the Senate that they are only going to get more Conservative, so send 'em back if you want, but I AM going to win. Eventually, the Senate would look so bad they would beg for the FIRST nominee back again. When you're out of ammo, fix your damn bayonets and charge!
I'm very worried about Miers nomination, but I'm hoping Scalia has some inside info on this woman that she's the real deal even with the ify past. We shall see. Hope he's right.
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.