[Map Kernow]

You're parsing. I assume you can't find anything to back up your original statement and have chosen to dodge and weave.

And you're distorting again. My original statement contained no claim that any other Justice had commented on an nominee---that's as easily checked as the date you really became a member. It challenged Scalia to have the coglioni to make it clear that he was commenting on the Miers' nomination, instead of coyly and "coincidentally" talking about nominees with "no judicial experience," that shills here could immediately turn into an "endorsement" of Miers, and so they and you have. Such coyness---and dishonesty--isn't going to advance the Miers nomination....so bring it ON!!!

[Howlin]

I ask you a simple question: produce any link that shows any past Supreme Court justice has ever come out in support of a nominee.

You can't do it and won't admit it so you blather one.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

In Scalia's defense, he was merely replying to a reporter's query.

Yes, he was-implicitly-defending the White House's prerogative to nominate Miers, but I don't think that necessarily means that he was defending Miers in any way.

I view it more as a gesture of deference to the White House in judicial nominations, which is appropriate, no matter how much I might detest the idea of a Justice Miers.

If Scalia had intervened in any other way I would have been up in arms.