Skip to comments.Antonin Scalia Defends Miers
Posted on 10/09/2005 9:10:09 AM PDT by Crackingham
In an interview set for broadcast on Monday, leading conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears to be defending Harriet Miers against critics who say she doesn't have the qualifications to sit on the High Court.
"I think it's a good thing to have people from all sorts of backgrounds [on the Court]," Scalia tells CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, as the debate rages over Miers' lack of judical experience.
Without mentioning the Bush nominee by name, the conservative legal icon 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.
"There is now nobody with that [non judicial] background after the death of the previous chief," Scalia laments to Bartiromo.
"And the reason that's happened, I think, is that the nomination and confirmation process has become so controversial, so politicized that I think a president does not want to give the opposition an easy excuse [to say] 'Well, this person has no judicial experience.'" Scalia concludes: "I don't think that's a good thing. I think the Byron Whites, the Lewis Powells and the Bill Rehnquists have contributed to the court even though they didn't sit on a lower federal court."
I guess everyone here who has given up on BUSH will just have to give up on Scalia.
After all he is NOT really a conservative in the mold of Thomas, now is he?
he is not commenting on her specific abilities - either way. its just a general comment.
"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.
BUMP to watch the meltdown if the screamers are up this morning...
There is no way this woman is not qualified. What they teach you in law school, essentially, is what an appellate judge does. You read hundreds of cases, and discuss what they mean and the logic behind them.
So every graduate of law school really has the training to be an appellate judge, although possibly not the temperament. And it's really not something that you get better at with experience. In fact, if anything it's the opposite. The longer you sit on the bench, the more you come to think that it's your opinion that's important, and not the legislature's.
Although Scalia didn't comment on HM's specific abilities, either way, for him to comment at all, even in a general way is a lion's roar.
Yes, leave it to Newsmax to screw up something like this, perhaps on purpose.
God, I hope they've all got laryngitis by now. I'm sick of them and their negative drumbeats.
It looks like all the grumblers over Miers will have a new voice to contend with, a voice that's the icon of conservatism. What will Ann Coulter do now? Yikes!
Sorry but Roberts was a judge.
My kinda judge!!
Finally! A reasoned voice speaks.
Isnt this hilarious? The same people that want to discount EVERYONE else (ie the pundits like Limbaugh, Levin, etc) --because "BUSH KNOWS HER", are the same people who run right over here and cheer on Scalia, who DOESNT. So which is it?
maybe maybe not...
but I just popped from fresh popcorn and after my Buckeyes took a dive last night, I need some good laughs....
"Scalia concludes: I think the Byron Whites, the Lewis Powells and the Bill Rehnquists have contributed to the court even though they didn't sit on a lower federal court."
Sounds like it was meant for Miers.
This is the first thing I have heard that makes me feel a bit better about Miers. I have the greatest respect for Scalia. If she's ok with him, that means a lot.
I'll roast a couple marshmallows for ya re: screamers. :-)
Scalia shoots straight,imo.
Let the process play out.
If we wanted his opinion, we'd ask the pundits.
Waiting for the Meirs' bashers to call Scalia a RINO/neo-con/Bush crony.
"Isnt this hilarious? The same people that want to discount EVERYONE else (ie the pundits like Limbaugh, Levin, etc) --because "BUSH KNOWS HER", are the same people who run right over here and cheer on Scalia, who DOESNT. So which is it?"
He's responding to the critic's argument. He's suggesting their argument (lack of judicial experience) doesn't hold water.
It should be noted that I stated-before that article was posted-that Scalia wouldn't come out in opposition to this candidate.
In fact, my respect for him would be diminished if he had.
Also, he did not defend Harriet Miers, he defended-in a generic sense-the concept of a non-jurist being elevated to the Supreme Court.
LA-LA-LA! I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!
(Sticks fingers in ears.)
I think what he's saying is accurate, but it doesn't necessarily reflect on Miers. As a general statement, he's right--people criticizing Miers for her lack of judicial experience are off-base. This doesn't mean that she's a good pick, otherwise.
I think he's talking about Miers. His comparison is on judge vs. non judge, not CJ Rehnquist vs CJ Roberts or Rehnquist-replacement vs O'Conno-replacement.
Miers is not of this caliber. Not even close.
The people who oppose Meirs are simply liberal/conservative elitist snobs.
"Waaaa she didn't attend Hahvard and she won't be attending our cocktail parties. Part of the little people, I say. Haarumph."
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.
Sorry about your Buckeyes. My Longhorns and Red Raiders won yesterday and so did my Astros! Three for three is unusual...
I'm about to sign off FR for a while & get some stuff done. The Astros can clinch with a win over Atlanta at noon today here in Houston and I'll be parked in front of the tube. Your popcorn sounds good! Hope I didn't blow all my good fortune yesterday...
does Scalia know Miers at all? where would Scalia have gotten any in depth knowledge of Miers from?
ping to #19
Strange Question: Is there any law against conferring with sitting conservative judges regarding nominations?
Either that or the Scalia doesn't know what he is talking about and blahhhhhh....
You seriously think he would say anything negative about her if he thought he was going to have to work with her for the rest of his time on the bench?
Uh, excuse me, but Judge Roberts came from the Court of Appeals. It is definitely not him whom Scalia was referring to.
at least he didn't say we needed to look for judicial talent offshore.. like some justices might.. ;-)
"... the conservative legal icon 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. Sandra Day O'Connor."
That would be more accurate, IMO. After all, Miers is not going to be Chief Justice, as was Rehnquist.
Why does everybody think that others (Reid, Bork, Scalia) have some bit of secret information? The only one who might is the president.
What does he know, he's not a self appointed Conservative god!!
Pray for W and Harriet Miers
Curiously, I can't find another source for these quotes. They somehow sound familiar, however.