[jdm]

Confusing story.

For example....

"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."

Scalia is therefore talking about John Roberts and defending his position as CJ on the SC -- not Harriet Miers. This appears to be a take on Roberts, not Miers.

[neutrality]

Yes, leave it to Newsmax to screw up something like this, perhaps on purpose.

[csmusaret]

Sorry but Roberts was a judge.

[BlueNgold]

You are looking for justification where none exists - Rhenquist himself was a Justice before he was Chief, however before being nominated to SCOTUS he had no previous judicial experience. The reference of Byron White and Lewis Powell clearly shows Sclaia's mindset - Rhenquist, White, and Powell all came to SCOTUS without having sat on the bench.

Roberts was in fact a lower court Judge before his nomination to SCOTUS - he doesn't fit this discussion (not to mention he is now the sitting CJ and Scalia is not likely to discuss the qualification of a sitting justice out of simple decorum.)

Know the facts, and it all becomes quite clear. Scalia's reference is to a nominee without previous judicial experience - HM. You can try to spin this to make yourself feel better about the situation, but it won't make it any less true.

[ContraryMary]

Scalia is therefore talking about John Roberts and defending his position as CJ on the SC -- not Harriet Miers. This appears to be a take on Roberts, not Miers.

Uh, excuse me, but Judge Roberts came from the Court of Appeals. It is definitely not him whom Scalia was referring to.

[neutrality]

Curiously, I can't find another source for these quotes. They somehow sound familiar, however.

[deport]

"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."

---

...Scalia is therefore talking about John Roberts and defending his position as CJ on the SC -- not Harriet Miers. This appears to be a take on Roberts, not Miers.

.......................
It appears to me that you can't follow logic when reading what was quoted. The article specifically mentions three justices that have sat on the court without prior judicial experience. The reference to Rehnquist is that he is the last one and is now gone, thus someone without the judicial experience would be good to have to replace the void left by Rehnquist.....

Roberts had judicial experience don'tcha know.

[alnick]

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

[Republican Wildcat]

Scalia is therefore talking about John Roberts

Obviously not. Roberts was a judge.

[Mike Darancette]

Scalia is therefore talking about John Roberts

I didn't know that Roberts never served as a Federal Judge.

[Chickenhawk Warmonger]

"never served as a judge"

can't be talking about Roberts as Roberts has served as a judge.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

This story is confusing ONLY if you know nothing about history and are unable to use logic!

[rwfromkansas]

Wrong. He is saying there needs to be another non-judge on the Court because since Rehnquist's death, the Court has lost that.

Roberts was a judge. He obviously is not talking about Roberts.

[CA Conservative]

Except for the minor detail that Roberts was a circuit court judge - thus completely obviating his main point, if you believe your own post.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

This appears to be a take on Roberts, not Miers.

Except that Roberts was a Judge.