Antonin Scalia Defends Miers

Newsmax ^ | 10/9/5

[Map Kernow]

You're parsing. I assume you can't find anything to back up your original statement and have chosen to dodge and weave.

And you're distorting again. My original statement contained no claim that any other Justice had commented on an nominee---that's as easily checked as the date you really became a member. It challenged Scalia to have the coglioni to make it clear that he was commenting on the Miers' nomination, instead of coyly and "coincidentally" talking about nominees with "no judicial experience," that shills here could immediately turn into an "endorsement" of Miers, and so they and you have. Such coyness---and dishonesty--isn't going to advance the Miers nomination....so bring it ON!!!

[counterpunch]

> The very fact that he's remaining "neutral" on Miers is proof that he doesn't think she was the best pick.

Now you're just proving to everybody just how dumb and desperate you are.

He is remaing NEUTRAL because that is the way this is handled, unless, of course, you, in your endless pit of wisdom, can provide a link for ANY other Supreme Court justice coming out in SUPPORT of any nominee.

Got one? If not, stop saying stupid stuff like that.

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I was talking about Rush Limbaugh's "neutrality", not Antonin Scalia's.
For Rush to be sitting on the sidelines rather than leading the cheer speaks volumes of the incompetence of this pick, and I will repeat and stand by that assertion, no matter how much you take it out of context.

So while I try to refrain from the immature ad hominems that you seem throw around like a Tourette's child throwing a temper tantrum, I would have to say that you are the one who is "proving to everybody just how dumb and desperate you are."

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

This story is confusing ONLY if you know nothing about history and are unable to use logic!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

That privilege will have to be waived, otherwise there is no record upon the Senate Judiciary Committee can base their evaluation of Ms. Miers, i.e. there are no hearings.

This is why nominating someone with a public record is preferable to nominating an admitted blank slate, stealth candidate.

[Mike Darancette]

Don't confuse the Fire Breathers with facts, they are spinning as fast as they can already.

[Howlin]

I ask you a simple question: produce any link that shows any past Supreme Court justice has ever come out in support of a nominee.

You can't do it and won't admit it so you blather one.

[Lazamataz]

This headline is utterly unsupported by the text of the article.

And the fact that the Legacy Media is getting behind Meirs to the point of lying in the headlines, well, frankly that scares me.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

In Scalia's defense, he was merely replying to a reporter's query.

Yes, he was-implicitly-defending the White House's prerogative to nominate Miers, but I don't think that necessarily means that he was defending Miers in any way.

I view it more as a gesture of deference to the White House in judicial nominations, which is appropriate, no matter how much I might detest the idea of a Justice Miers.

If Scalia had intervened in any other way I would have been up in arms.

[TAdams8591]

President Bush has had PLENTY of help, PLENTY. And from people like ME.

I disagreed with Reagan and said so at the time and he is my hero.

People are permitted to disagree with their leaders in the US even when they are of the same party. If you don't like that move to Cuba or China.

[jdm]

"And President Bush picked (someone) who is also NOT a proven conservative."

True, factual. Agree 100%. A conservative Democrat (what she appeared to be circa 1988) is far from a conservative Republican. Need more than just "trust" to support this nominee.

"In so doing, he has split his base. Very poor STRATEGERY on his part."

Amen. Well, she did vote for Reagan in '84. However, "EVERYONE" voted for Reagan in '84!!!!!

[bvw]

Hooray for poker playing Judges!

[Howlin]

Of course, they are permitted to disagree; but once a decision is made, why keep harping on the "what if's?"

What if Bush hadn't been elected?

[Howlin]

(what she appeared to be circa 1988)

Unlike you, she has EVOLVED.

[Lazamataz]

Ah, I see. It wasn't the Legacy Media that assigned a completely misleading and conjecture-filled headline to this article -- it was Carl from Oyster Bay.

Carl, I like you, but you took entirely too much 'license' with this headline, and your take on the comments can be reasonably disagreed with by intelligent conservatives.

I think you pretty much 'made up news' with this article, by injecting much too much of your personal opinion into the 'reporting' -- which is what annoys us most about the Legacy Media.

Please try to emulate the MSM/LM less.

[counterpunch]

Will this handful of Republicans be RINOs or Conservatives and will they oppose Miers on the basis of Bush's refusal to ignore Executive/Lawyer-Client privilege?

That depends on Miers. If she fails to turn the tide of Conservative skepticism, then it will be conservatives who join the Democrats in opposing Miers. If she adequately impresses in the hearings enough to convince the Conservative critics, then it will be the unreliable moderates who will join the Democrats.

[Dane]

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

She will run as fast as she can to the next liberal TV camera(ala pat buchanan).

[jdm]

"Miers is nominated to take the place of Rehnquist, as the judge without prior judicial experience.

Actually, President Bush said Miers is the replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor."

You're making the same mistake I made. Glad I'm not alone! :) I swear that one poorly worded sentence in that article was the nail in the coffin for me.

[TAdams8591]

"This is why nominating someone with a public record is preferable to nominating an admitted blank slate, stealth candidate."

Exactly.

Liberals openly nominate their candidates. We should do the same. Otherwise, we set a horrible precedent and punish those Conservatives who openly made tough decisions issuing rulings based on original intent, or standing up for conservative principles.

[Mike Darancette]

That privilege will have to be waived,

Has that privilege ever been waived for a nominee?

I personally can't see W doing this as her record can only contain something that bothers someone.

The RATS will have to be satisfied with her interview and and any hacks they can muster for the hearings.

[MinuteGal]

I hope Justice Scalia didn't go to two (gasp) church services this morning or he's dead meat along with Miss Miers.

Leni