It's like Scalia took the words right out of my mouth.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 10/08/2005 7:02:53 PM PDT by RDTF
Edited on 10/08/2005 9:16:37 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
NEW YORK -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday that he had not expected President Bush to nominate him to replace the late William Rehnquist as chief justice. "I'm not even sure I wanted it, to tell you the truth," Scalia told reporters at a media briefing before a gala dinner at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Manhattan Bush, who had in the past mentioned Scalia as one role model for an ideal chief justice, passed on Scalia and nominated John Roberts after Rehnquist's death. Scalia said the time he would have had to devote to administering the court as chief justice would have taken away from his thinking and writing.
Excerpt. Story follows at Washington Post
Horrible thought: is everyone sure it was a Sunday subway bombing the Islamists had in mind?
Of Course he didn't.
Nino does not want to be the "Ambassador of Good Will" on the Court.
He want to continue being his big, beautiful, abrasive self and we are all the better for it!!
Imagine that. Scalia knows nothing of her, so he won't pass judgement.
Too bad so many others lack his restraint.
It's like Scalia took the words right out of my mouth.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
didn't supreme court justices use to not say anything to anybody about anything? ... i'd hate to think they were influenced by blabbermouth clinton
You said it.
I don't need to meet her. I know all I need to know (by virtue of not knowing anything) that she is the wrong person at the wrong time for SCOTUS.
You're attempting to draw an equivalence where one cannot be fairly drawn.
Nice try but it won't fly.
The question "What do you think of the nominee?" is differnet from the question "What do you think of the nomination?"
I don't know (and give the benefit of the doubt to) the nominee, due to stealth. I am SERIOUSLY put off by the nomination, due to "stealth", a credible charge of cronyism, and aversion to conservative advocacy (probably the same thing as "stealth")
Wrong. She will give a judicial philosophy. And some specific views. She will not cite how she would rule on specific cases. As she should not.
You're attempting to draw an equivalence where one cannot be fairly drawn.
Wrong again.
It's called restraint. Something sorely missing from the anti-Miers crowd.
Bork had no problem voicing his opinion of the nominee with little information.
"Bork had no problem voicing his opinion of the nominee with little information."
Something wrong with that?
Good grief, when did you become a Bushbot? The point is precisely that we cannot pass judgment on her. THAT IS THE POINT!
Exactly. Why would anyone think Miers is a better choice than Luttig? And what would motivate Bush to nominate such an intellectual lightweight in the first place?
Cut the Bushbot crap. I get sick of that word against those who disagree.
The point is precisely that we cannot pass judgment on her.
But that isn't stopping a whole lot of folks from doing just that.
If you have to ask, there isn't much point in answering why...
Repeat after me.
The nomination process is now at the whim of the Gang of 14.
Several RINOs on the Gang of 14 said they wanted a female nominee to replace O'Conner.
Last I checked, Luttig wasn't female.
Like that? I don't either. But that's the reality.
Bork doesn't sit on the Supreme Court.
Bork could still exercise some restraint until he gets more information about Miers's views.
As could lots of folks on the right.
But I'm beginning to think the folks casting judgement on Miers with incomplete information are more interested in having THEIR views heard instead of hearing those of the nominee.
Scalia has class.
Scalia is a gentleman.
It makes sense that Bush wouldn't nominate him for Chief Justice, because he's already on the court, and the promotion would necessitate an additional confirmation procedure.
When and if she lets her views be known, which she as of late has not, then you can call for waiting. And if Bork has been reading her dossier and such, why does he need to show restraint? If he's formed an opinion I have no problem hearing it. He's giving us more than she is and I'll bet you more than she will when the hearings start.
Alrighty then...
Most people are not so much passing judgment on HER as they are no her as a nominee. We should be able to verify her judicial philosophy. This "trust me" stuff is nonsense. It may make the Bushbots swoon, but it doesn't work for the rest of us.
But okay, I know the history of your posts enough to know you are no Bushbot. So I apologize for that. But you must admit, there really is such a group in FR. They wear me out.
She hasn't even been nominated for a week. So maybe we can wait and get more information.
And if Bork has been reading her dossier and such, why does he need to show restraint?
Gee, I dunno - to maybe factor in her views instead of engaging in rampant conjecture? I know that's a quaint notion in this day and age, but some folks still think that is a good thing.
If he's formed an opinion I have no problem hearing it. He's giving us more than she is and I'll bet you more than she will when the hearings start.
Why don't you wait until we get more information?
Oh, sorry, that's no fun...
Was Scalia rolling his eyes as he said it?
She, or any other nominee, can sit at that table and say whatever they want. I also like knowing their track record, regardless of what they say to get in. Don't you?
Lol...
The affliction of Bush-Botulism scrambles the brain.
And manners. Scalia appears to be a real gentleman. He says what he thinks on issues in his rulings but is never personally rude.
There are some of those. But most of the folks I see on the pro-Miers camp are asking two things:
Wait until we have more information, and be willing to think outside the box regarding qualifications for a nominee, given how badly the mandarin class has run SCOTUS (and Washington, for that matter). We may decide that Miers is not the right way to think outside the box. But IMO it's also not viable to continue on the path we've taken regarding SCOTUS for the last fifty years - not just with the nominees, but with the role of SCOTUS and the fedgov in general. So I am gonna look at the establishment types with a very large grain of salt as they proclaim Miers to be unsuitable, because they haven't exactly done a bang-up job themselves.
Most people are not so much passing judgment on HER as they are no her as a nominee. We should be able to verify her judicial philosophy.
And once we have more information, let's do just that.
This "trust me" stuff is nonsense.
If you had to pick one area where Bush has thoroughly pushed a conservative agenda would it be spending? No. Education? No. Immigration? HELL NO.
If Bush asked me to trust him in those areas, I'd say show me instead.
But judicial nominations has been his strongest area. So I am willing to take a wait and see attitude. Couple that to the realities of the post-Gang of 14 Senate, and we need to bring a lot of factors to our own personal decisions over th
But okay, I know the history of your posts enough to know you are no Bushbot. So I apologize for that.
Thanks for that. It's been heated all around on this subject, so no hard feelings.
But you must admit, there really is such a group in FR. They wear me out.
They wear me out at times. I often disagree with them. But in this case, I think we do need to wait and see more.
Yeah, you discuss restraint and then call your opponents Bushbots.
Cut the crap.
And all that will come out as well. Right now we have a paucity of information. But that isn't stopping a lot of folks from casting judgement.
Most of the folks who oppose your point of view are saying we need to wait to get more information before casting judgement. That smacks of restraint to me.
Folks on your side of the debate are belittling her legal experience. Making a point from her lack of children. Echoing Dem talking points about cronyism. Calling her another Souter, when Souter was a result of Bush not knowing the nominee well. So Bush knows Miers well - which would prevent the situation that led to Souter - but because he knows her well, it's cronyism.
In other words, your side has acted with little restraint and little intellectual consistency.
"Cut the crap."
After I cut it up, where do I send it? Have an address for me?
Yeah, put it on your doorstep in a paper bag, throw a match in it, and ring the doorbell.
"In other words, your side has acted with little restraint and little intellectual consistency."
Well, we can't help it if we ain't itelagant like you.
OK, I did what you said, now what?
Intellegence has nothing to do with restraint, as Bork demonstrated.
Scalia knows that it would be improper and out of his place to pass his opinion on a Presidential nominee to the press, no matter who the nominee or what his opinion was. The "I have no impression of her" doesn't mean anything and is not valid in the manner you are trying using it.
Really? Once again, he is acting with restraint. A commodity in short supply over the last week.
The Washington Post normally would not give Scalia the time of day, but with a little conservative blood in the water, they are trolling for Scalia to trash Bush. But Scalia has some stature and some class in a company town which is populated with dolts that have neither.
dirtboy is only asking people to wait for the nominee to have her day in front of the 18 Senators of the Judicial Committee
dirtboy... Sorry to inject myself, but I felt somebody should.... See you another day maybe
Because this too shall pass, like other FR tempests, and the little-minded folks will become known by their deeds and treated accordingly.
Bork is not (unfortunately) a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
And I agree with you, I will wait to pass judgement. Would I have liked Janice Rogers Brown? You betcha! I am willing to wait.
Not calling anybody anything, not voicing an ill-informed opinion on Miers. Just curious - what is the etymology of Bushbot? A non-native speaker would like to know. Thanks in advance.
Many of us have an opinion to share about this important subject. I thought that was what this board was all about. Seems some of you are not only defensive about this but quite sensitive as well. I think our conversation has been civil, and I surely don't feel like it has gone south. If anyone is offended by my input I apologize, but I don't apologize for expressing my opinion.
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.