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."
"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
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.