Antonin Scalia Defends Miers

Newsmax ^ | 10/9/5

[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."

[ilovew]

Of course there's a difference. But why should all justices have the same background?

[xsmommy]

i have said it before, just because people are conservative, doesn't mean #1, that they are necessarily smart and #2, that they are necessarily even NICE! would that it were so. but we can be civil and so we should : )

[Map Kernow]

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. : )

You're on. Those terms are excised from my vocabulary. Now, um, can y'all stop using the terms "Bush-hater," "DU talking points," "elitist"....? :)

[jdm]

"Why didn't anyone mobilize against Kennedy because they didn't know whether or not he was conservative?"

Because he lied, apparently. Everything on his resume pointed to a seasoned conservative. We were taken on a ride.

[xsmommy]

i have NEVER used those terms and i won't. deal.

[ilovew]

The Senate is not what would look bad, the president would because he couldn't get his nominee confirmed by "his own party". That's how it would look to everyone. And in the meantime, as he keeps sending nominees to get rejected, Sandra Day O'Connor remains in place, wrecking our constitution.

[gpapa]

A little history for your edification, from Justice Kennedy's bio:

"Anthony Kennedy
Biography

Many pundits assumed that Ronald Reagan's third choice to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell would not constitute his favorite nominee for the position. Ironically, however, Anthony Kennedy shared a deeper background and association with Reagan than either of Reagan's two previous candidates. Reagan chose Kennedy for the spot only after the conservatism of Robert Bork and the embarrassing admission of Douglas Ginsburg's occasional marijuana use unhinged their respective confirmations. Still, Reagan did not resort to Kennedy out of desperation, but instead turned to him as an old associate worthy of reward."

Source: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/104/biography

[Map Kernow]

i have NEVER used those terms and i won't. deal.

Good for you. I haven't used all the terms you highlighted, but your point is excellent and a good guideline for further discussion.

[ilovew]

Then you're taking everything on HIS word. That doesn't make any sense either. Your whole argument against Miers is that she doesn't have a background, not that she doesn't have a resume. Miers could just as easily write a resume explaining that she's violently opposed to abortion but you wouldn't believe her, would you?

[Oklahoma]

Ahem, I attended that other Big Twelve school in Oklahoma that lost yesterday and have a sister that is a grad of the UT system. Stoops looks more human this year, doesn't he?

Back on the subject of the SC, this pick "is" important. I have hope that Bush has learned, just like Levin should have from his experiences during the Reagan Administration, that you can't always depend on the recommendations of others when making these picks. Maybe he knows her well enough from working with her to avoid the chances of picking another O'Connor, or heaven forbid, another Souter.

[VRWC For Truth]

First of all, it's Newsmax who's making up the connection between the Scalia's quotes and Miers. In this case I'll wait to see the interview with Scalia ... since he has earned my trust. I'm guessing they were used out of context.

[HostileTerritory]

I agree. It does mean that there is more to prove, though.

I'm not on the bash-Miers bandwagon. I'm looking forward to hearing what she says before the Senate, and am sure she will be fine, if not the best choice in the world.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Hi, my dear friend. I just get too frustrated to hang around all the time. Gotta take a break once in a while. Plus, I have a stalker now. : )

Anyway...another issue, another foot-stomping session...LOL

[Cboldt]

The President has embarked on the path of a different fight. I think he was aiming to avoid confrontation with the Senate, and that he was helping the GOP avoid an in-Senate battle. Go along / get along.

Meanwhile, the dialog relating to the Constitution goes quiet. The party prevails. I hope it benefits the people.

[Siena Dreaming]

Looks like Scalia doesn't need a "flame-thrower" on the Court as so many dissenting conservatives want.

I imagine he thinks flame-thrower would most likely be awfully tiresome to work with, not to mention ineffective in the long run.

Better to have a hard-working, deeply reasoning individual who will be able to work with people, yet will consistently vote conservative. Thus, his words today.

[Map Kernow]

Your whole argument against Miers is that she doesn't have a background, not that she doesn't have a resume. Miers could just as easily write a resume explaining that she's violently opposed to abortion but you wouldn't believe her, would you?

What's wrong with a person having a resume, a track record, some record of qualifications? I really don't understand why we critics of the Miers nomination don't have a right to see these things in a nominee, or to reject the nominee as unqualified if we don't see them.

[gpapa]

They are admitting defeat in advance. Frankly I have had enough defeats regarding the Supreme Court, going back as far as the appointment of Democrat William Brennan by President Eisenhower in 1956. Much later President Eisenhower admitted he made a mistake in nominating Brennan. Thanks for nothing we got one of the most liberal judges in history for the next 34 years. I have no idea if Nominee Miers will turn out to be the next coming of a Rehnquist or Scalia or Souter. I await the Senate hearings regarding the nomination to prove she has the qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court. Until then I will hold my fire on this nomination.

[ilovew]

This comment was not directed towards you. We were discussing the argument of Kennedy having lied on his resume and how that related to Miers. Go back and read the whole conversation.

[Map Kernow]

Go back and read the whole conversation.

I did---could you please answer my questions?

[Edit35]

Scalia is exactly right.

Judicial experience does not a great Supreme Court Justice make.

Miers is still a wimpy, awful pick.

Why? The Dems now will only be that much more emboldened (in the future) to reject any well-known conservative Judge who happens to have a paper trail record.

After all, even Bush recognized that conservative Judges are out of the mainstream and not suitable for Supreme Court nominee. (/sarc)