Skip to comments.
Antonin Scalia Defends Miers
Newsmax ^
| 10/9/5
Posted on 10/09/2005 9:10:09 AM PDT by Crackingham
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 521-532 next last
To: Crackingham
Could Scalia be salivating at the thought of having on the Court someone who he believes he can take by the hand and lead in his direction. Why it would almost be like him having two votes.
The result might be great but I prefer an equal to Scalia usually coming to the same conclusion by their own articulable reason and intellect.
81
posted on
10/09/2005 10:01:07 AM PDT
by
Sabramerican
(Islam is to Peace as Rape is to Love)
To: JCEccles
Miers is not of this caliber. Not even close.Evidence?
82
posted on
10/09/2005 10:01:18 AM PDT
by
alnick
To: PISANO
Time to burn Scalia at the stack and drown him at the same time. He may be defending Miers.
83
posted on
10/09/2005 10:01:39 AM PDT
by
Grampa Dave
(Jamie Gorelick is responsible for more dead Americans(9-11) than those killed in Iraq.)
To: Howlin
To: XJarhead
But a lot of the criticism being directed against her is on the grounds that she hasn't been a judge, and is just a commercial litigator without Constitutional experience. You could search every thread here criticizing Miers, and you'd see that particular criticism running rampant. It's one of the pillars of the opposition to her. Scalia is saying that particular criticism is off base.
My observation disagrees somewhat with that. I don't believe the objections to her not having sat on the bench are per se. "Sat on the bench" is one way that a potential jurist reveals their judicial philosophy, but it is not the only way. One must infer Miers constitutional temperament from information. There is very little where she has expressed it directly.
Scalia is saying that never having been a judge is not a disqualifing factor. And of course, it is not. I don't see anything in Justice Scalia's comments that show an opinion one way or the other about "the politics" of selecting a Justice.
It is undeniable that many conservaitves are disappointed in the pick, but not necssarily in the person, Harriet Miers. The pick sparked a bit of a political firestorm. And instead of defending and advocating constitutional principles, we are collectively engaged in defending "the pick." 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.
85
posted on
10/09/2005 10:02:10 AM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: alnick
"Without mentioning the Bush nominee by name, the conservative legal icon (Scalia) 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."
The above sentence would be just perfect if the phrase "Chief Justice William Rehnquist" was replaced with "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor". Otherwise, the above sentence implies that Miers is filling Rehnquist's shoes, in that she's going to be Chief Justice, which she's not.
The article is poorly worded -- that's all.
86
posted on
10/09/2005 10:04:15 AM PDT
by
jdm
Comment #87 Removed by Moderator
To: jdm
"... 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. Sandra Day O'Connor."Because he's not talking about Roberts replacing Renquist as CJ. He's talking about Miers replacing Renquist as a justice who came to the Court with no prior judicial experience.
Context.
88
posted on
10/09/2005 10:05:10 AM PDT
by
alnick
To: Crackingham
89
posted on
10/09/2005 10:05:56 AM PDT
by
tiki
To: AmericaUnited
all of the people who are real thinkers and not hysterical, knee-jerk shriekers think Miers will do just fine. Put me in with the hysterical knee-jerk shriekers. Thanks.
90
posted on
10/09/2005 10:06:08 AM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: Crackingham
This is of little comfort since just yesterday he said he knew absolutely nothing about her.
He is not defended Harriet Miers, he is defending the idea of putting non-judges on the court.
He is assuming she is qualified while admitting he knows nothing about her.
This is a bad sign that the administration had to call NINO and put him on the damage control.
91
posted on
10/09/2005 10:06:14 AM PDT
by
msnimje
(Who is my favorite Supreme Court Justice? ....That's easy.....Earl Warren Burger)
To: Sabramerican
Scalia is doing nothing more than what he should, i.e. replying in as forthright a manner as possible to questions posed to him by a reporter.
The Miers acolytes are clinging to his words-which are NOT an endorsement in any way of Ms. Miers-because there are so few distinguished, reputable legal scholars who have been pleased with this nomination.
92
posted on
10/09/2005 10:07:52 AM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: jdm
Scalia is therefore talking about John Roberts Obviously not. Roberts was a judge.
To: counterpunch
Scalia did not defend the nomination of Harriet Miers. He merely rebuked criticizing a nominee for lacking judicial experience. Wow............aren't you dizzy from THAT spin?
94
posted on
10/09/2005 10:08:13 AM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Howlin
"You're too stupid to realize that there is NOBODY on the Court that fits that description."
I realize that there's no one currently on the court that fits the description; however, the line about Miers taking the place of Rehnquist is misleading, in the sense that the slot has already been taken (by Judge John Roberts).
95
posted on
10/09/2005 10:08:49 AM PDT
by
jdm
To: neutrality
Roberts WAS a judge before coming to the Court. Let's get it right, folks.
To: jdm
He was talking about taking his place on the Court as someone who had never been a judge, not his slot specifically.
You just keep on changing the story, but they are all false.
To: jdm
the line about Miers taking the place of Rehnquist is misleading, in the sense that the slot has already been taken (by Judge John Roberts).
Yes, in the physical sense but not in the sense of judicial experience which is what Scalia was talking about..... You aren't keeping his words in the context they were submitted.
98
posted on
10/09/2005 10:13:02 AM PDT
by
deport
To: jdm
You're splitting hairs now that you've been shown you're wrong.
You know very well that Rehnquist never was a judge; that was the parallel.
You seem to need Romper Room News to figure these things out.
99
posted on
10/09/2005 10:13:12 AM PDT
by
Howlin
To: jdm
scalia stated that it is worthwhile to have someone without prior judicial experience, just as CJ rehnquist had none when he arrived at the court. he was not referring to his LITERAL replacement on the bench.
100
posted on
10/09/2005 10:13:58 AM PDT
by
xsmommy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 521-532 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson