U.S.Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks during a news conference Saturday, Oct. 8, 2005 in New York. Scalia will serve as the Grand Marshall of the New York Columbus Day Parade on Monday. (AP Photo/Chad Rachman)
Posted on 10/10/2005 8:22:54 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, often extolled by conservative Republicans as their ideal model of a judge, said Monday the confirmation process was too politicized and that he wouldn't want to experience it again.
When asked whether he thought he could be confirmed again by the Senate, Scalia said: "I don't know. I wouldn't want to go through it today, I'll tell you that much."
Scalia, who was confirmed by the Senate on 98-0 vote in 1986, was interviewed by NBC's "Today" show. He was thought at one point to be a candidate for chief justice when William H. Rehnquist died. President Bush nominated John Roberts, who was confirmed by the Senate on a 78-22 vote last month.
Bush has said he would nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Several conservatives have complained that current Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is not enough like Scalia and Thomas, and are opposing her nomination.
Scalia said he will miss the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Miers wants to replace.
"If there was anybody that has been sort of the social glue of the court, it's been Sandra and I will miss her," Scalia said.
On another issue, Scalia said he is adamantly opposed to televising Supreme Court sessions.
"We don't want to become entertainment," he said. "I think there's something sick about making entertainment out of real people's legal problems. I don't like it in the lower courts, and I don't particularly like it in the Supreme Court."
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has introduced legislation in the Senate that would allow sessions of the high court to be televised. The court has allowed the audio recordings of sessions to be released, but it has refused to allow cameras into its hearing chamber.
___
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
U.S.Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks during a news conference Saturday, Oct. 8, 2005 in New York. Scalia will serve as the Grand Marshall of the New York Columbus Day Parade on Monday. (AP Photo/Chad Rachman)
Ya think?
(and this brilliant opinion from a supreme court member, no less.)
The blame for politicizing of the SC nomination process lays at the feet of the Demlibrats.
Oh, Justice Scalia...why can we not have about 4 of you and about 5 Clarence Thomases...
This may be why Roe v. Wade will be overturned with a surprising 7-2 or 6-3 vote. I would bet all but the one or two idiological lefitists on the court now realize that Roe has been poison to the judiciary and the confirmation process.
And they need a minimum 6-3 vote so the extreme left will understand they need to win this in the state legislatures not via a new president appointing different Justices as openning happen.
Interesting theory. I do think that Kennedy and Souter are more "go with the flow" than they are true ideological leftists. Kennedy definitely could be swayed back to the right, not so sure about Souter though.
BTW am I the only one that thinks Souter's a homo?
Now why would SC nominations have become so politicized? There can be only one reason: Because the Court itself has become so politicized. And how did that happen? It happened when the Justices started acting like legislators, and not like judges.
No. He's still in the closet, but that's my guess.
Scalia is speaking on a social occasion and being a gentleman. But he's as fully aware as we are that all the "politicizing" is on one side.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was as extreme as they come, but she was easily confirmed with a large majority. Clinton's nominees almost all slid through without a hitch. All of Bush's nominees have been filibustered, delayed, insulted, and obstructed. We all know which side pulled out the FBI files on the candidates and sicced the pornographers on them.
The people should decide (through Congress) not the court.
But but but he just loved Sandra!
"the confirmation process was too politicized and that he wouldn't want to experience it again."
How about having some opinions about the life service of the SCOTUS members? Why not have 10 year or 15 year terms in lieu of until death? Original framers had no clue that the average life-span of Americans were going to be in the upper 70's.
Souter just comes across as "fruity" to me. Personally if he is gay that in and of itself isn't why I can't stand the guy-it's his judicial record! At this point, I don't care if a SC Justice is a flaming homo as long as he is an originalist! And doesn't support gay marriage...
Souter was never a rightie, he just played one because righties were in power in the state. People who knew Souter who was pretty recluse, knew he was a liberal. Unfortunately, Harriet has some of the same characteristics as Souter, but unlike Souter she is an evangical Christian which give us some hope.
He may have liked her as a person. Doesn't mean he agreed with her philosophy.
Think about Rhenquists funeral. O'Connor shed a tear, they were old friends and dated once but even though they often voted opposite one another, I'm sure they still cared for one another personally.
No. The people should NOT decide.
This voyeurism that has crept into every corner of American life should be kept out of the judicial process. It is ruining criminal courts, and judges should be able to continue to refuse cameras in the highest courts in the land.
And that adds to the level of discourse how?
IT doesn't...I just didn't want to start another thread on it.
I couldn't care less if a SC justice is a flaming homo as long as he (or she) is an originalist.
The article asks: In today's climate, would Antonin Scalia win SC confirmation by the Senate?
I think that a more interesting question is: Would Scalia even be nominated to the SC by President Bush?
Bush has appointed clear originalists to the lower courts, where they can't much exercise their originalism. In contrast, both his Supreme Court nominees lack strong originalist credentials - and the SC is where originalism really can be applied.
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.