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. That having someone who has not been a judge and has instead been a practitioner is actually a good thing. There are a variety of reasons this is correct if you're at all familiar with e-discovery and some of the big issues affecting commercial litigation in his country.
So while Scalia's statement is not an endorsement of Miers in particular, it is an explicit rejection of one of the primary arguments advanced against her.
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.
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.
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.