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."

[Stellar Dendrite]

And FReeping with a flamesuit on!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

That is one of many pillars in the argument against Miers.

No one has said that a non-jurist is, de facto, not competent to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

What we have said is that this particular non-jurist-with many other debits-is not fit to serve.

No statement by Justice Scalia burnishes the less than stellar credentials-or erases the manifest liabilities-that Ms. Miers brings to the table.

[ThePythonicCow]

But why wouldn't the sentence, then, instead, read:
... to take the place of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Sandra Day O'Connor."

Because he is referring to someone will take the place of Reinquist in his role as someone who wasn't a judge before, not in his role as Chief Justice.

[Ole Okie]

but I just popped from fresh popcorn and after my Buckeyes took a dive last night, I need some good laughs....

Mike, you think you need laughs?

My Sooners have made this a somber Sunday.

On top of that, I have been converted to a Braves fan. Watching the Half-Astros destroy them last night didn't exactly make the night any brighter.

No Braves bullpen.

[denydenydeny]

That's it, throw Scalia off the boat. He's revealed hmself as just another liberal. No compromise for us true conservatives.

/extremely heavy sarcasm

[hosepipe]

Scalias comments here are stretched so tight to make them mean what they don't say they are almost a musical instrument..

[Miss Marple]

Perhaps he has read briefs she has written, had conversations with her at Administration functions. Or maybe he doesn't know her, but is concerned that a nominee be given a fair hearing before being trashed by her opponents.

[Miss Marple]

Oh, and Scalia is a friend of Cheney's.

[deport]

And the Rehnquist void is being filled by Judge John Roberts, who has judicial experience.

---

Really?... the void of no judicial experience is being filled by Ms. Miers if she is confirmed. Roberts had judicial experience....

What is so hard for you to grasp about no one currently sits on the court that doesn't have judicial experience. That is what Scalia is referencing and since Renhquist is the last one to do so then he is using his name which is correctly the last person to sit on the court without prior judicial experience and is now gone.

[alnick]

Uh-oh. :oD

[alnick]

Nope. Roberts has served as a judge. Nice try.

[alnick]

[counterpunch]

Well, well......the HERO to all of us conservatives DOES NOT think Meirs to be a catostrophic nomination!!!

You argument is based on a logical fallacy.
Scalia did not defend the nomination of Harriet Miers. He merely rebuked criticizing a nominee for lacking judicial experience.
That is not at all the same thing as saying "Harriet Miers was a good choice."

I have never personally argued against her lack of experience on the bench specifically. What I take issue with is her complete lack of scholarship in Constitutional Law. And that is quite a different issue altogether.

[AmericaUnited]

My, my my... all of the people who are real thinkers and not hysterical, knee-jerk shriekers think Miers will do just fine.

[Jim_Curtis]

In sitting for an interview at this time, it is expected that Scalia would be asked a question regarding qualifications and his response is about what anyone would expect. He's not going to say "only sitting judges should be considered for SCOTUS" because the Constitution makes no such requirements and he isn't one to infer one.

Like all rational people, Scalia doesn't want a Dukakis Democrat on the SCOTUS. He doesn't need to instruct conservatives on this matter because we aren't idiots.

[VRWC For Truth]

In an interview set for broadcast on Monday, leading conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears to be defending Harriet Miers against critics

"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.

Where is the direct quote saying Scalia supports Miers? Judicial is spelled wrong. This is Newsmax's opinion ... not fact.

[Howlin]

for him to comment at all, even in a general way is a lion's roar.

Precisely.

[Howlin]

and their negative drumbeats.

The funniest part is that they think they're winning!

[alnick]

... 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.

He's not referring to Roberts as Renquist's replacement as CJ; he's referring to Miers as replacing Renquist as a justice who came to the high court with no prior judicial experience.

[ez]

No one is getting it. Scalia says NOTHING about Miers in this article. Nothing.

He's talking about some who never served as a judge, and you contend that is Roberts? Desperation...