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 take it as an illumination of the degree of commitment the GOP has to the constitution.
But you can count on me to not derail the GOP's pick for Senator from Maine.
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.
Even if I loved Harriet Miers, the SCOTUS jurist, I would not like this nomination today. However it plays out, I am optimistic. The big picture is in God's hands.
The cocktail circuit in Wash. DC, perhaps.
No argument there. The consolation to me is that the people who have known her the best are the ones who are the most confident. When Leonard Leo endorses her as strongly as he did, that's a very positive sign. He's worked closely with her regarding past picks, so he should know her mind, and his own judicial conservative credentials are about as solid as you could want.
And nary a peep or objection from the GOP about the gang of 14 or the anti-constitutional 60 vote supermajority. Even the President appears to have capitulated to THAT.
I hate it too, but unfortunately, there's not much Bush can do about that absent a Senate majority of non-Dems/RINOS.
Well take care in your wonderings... I still hang around and visit some other sites but don't post on them. Kinda in a topsy turvy world right now from the after effects of Katrina's sister and will be for a while I think.
Wow, a stalker...... you must be doing something right. Stay safe.
Ya know, this may sound elitist, but I would be more comfortable had Mr. Miers every married and/or had children. At least some step children or something.
Somehow I feel less comfortable with the opinions of a Judge who has never had to make the type of family decisions that come from having children.
I know this point of view will rankle some people, but that's just how I feel.
Actually, some have. I've read plenty of people saying that her background as a commercial litigator -- a non-jurist -- is something they hold against her. Scalia is correct in pointing out why that is wrong.
What we have said is that this particular non-jurist-with many other debits-is not fit to serve.
Based on what? I think many of the other criticisms all dovetail with her not being a jurist.
No statement by Justice Scalia burnishes the less than stellar credentials-or erases the manifest liabilities-that Ms. Miers brings to the table.
Such as? Because she's a commercial litigator and not a judge, its inevitable that she's not going to have the writings some people consider a minimum qualifier. Saying "she hasn't practiced constitutional law" or "she hasn't written on constitutional issues" is a criticism you're going to be able to level at almost any commercial litigator. It's part of the package. Criticize her for not having written/practiced constitutional law, and you're basically criticizing her for being a commercial litigator.
I've read similar stuff from people wishing she knew more about "average people". I think you've got it backwards.
The problem with too many justices is that they view themselves as policy makers. That considerations such as family, etc. and other "human" factors are important, and should be considered by justices when rendering opinions.
I couldn't disagree more. A Supreme Court justice should apply the Constitution as written, not insert his/her own notions of family or morality. That's the path to judicial activism, and a justice who becomes more liberal over time.
We will forever have stealth, wait-and-see, trust-me kinds of nominations. Qualified candidates who in their past had been open and articulate in their judicial philosophy will be passed over for risky appointees with no background or record.
It is a concession to the Democrats: We would rather avoid their criticism than stand for what we believe.
I hate it too, but unfortunately, there's not much Bush can do about that absent a Senate majority of non-Dems/RINOS.
I'll note that in my reference copy of the Living Constitution. Majority required for confirmation depends on political realities and Senate rules.
I disagree that there is little Bush can do. He can complain about his power being eroded by an unconstitutional practice. That fight is one he prefers not to engage. To bad, because he is a darn good fighter.
A Senator from Maine or anywhere else who is not a conservative in fact, not in name, deserves not an iota of my support. I have not given a dime to the RNC since the first 'read my lips' slip.
Your optimism is more than mine. I hope Roberts and Miers turn out OK, but based on recent history my optimism is waning further.
I don't think Nino is on the cocktail circuit. Not that he couldn't have met Miers someplace, but he certainly doesn't "know" her.
With the eyes of the nation upon them, a sharecroppers daughter like Janice Rogers Brown WOULD have been approved.
We would be pointing the finger at democrats for their conservative and racial bigotry, instead of those of us who disagree with the Miers appointment being accused of sexism, elitism and snobbery.
Pray for W and Harriet Miers
And just the way most of us supported Thomas until his confirmation, we will continue to HARP against Miers nomination, until she is confirmed.
But they desreve your pressure, and they get mine. My promise is to "not derail" them against a DEM - but I sure as shootin' don't support them.
I have not given a dime to the RNC since the first 'read my lips' slip.
I have. I quit on No Child Left Behind. I gave generously to the Swiftees.
If we were Liberals he would back down, sad to say. In fact, the nomination of Miers was Bush backing away from a fight with the Liberals. Too bad. That's the fight he should have picked.
Good post.
Good post.
There is something increasingly poisonous about Washington, D.C. Very few men can go there and not be ruined by it.
Power corrupts, and it shears off the testicles of those who would get to close to it and still try to oppose it.
I would report the stalker to Jim Rob and the mods to build a paper trail.
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.