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....