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."
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....
popcorn GOOD!!
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.
Ah, the IQ test administrator again.
Prove this.
"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."
I see you've already had a big cup of Making Sense this morning!
<< This can't be good. We all no that Bush's lawyer is a closet feminist, Marxist, and liberal. >>
Throw in a slosh of fiscal irresponsibility, a cup of 'compassionate' and a dash of disdain for America's sovereign borders, language and culture and lotsa folks'll reckon you're talking about her boss.
/snicker snicker
But a lot of the criticism being directed against her is on the grounds that she hasn't been a judge, and is just a commercial litigator without Constitutional experience. You could search every thread here criticizing Miers, and you'd see that particular criticism running rampant. It's one of the pillars of the opposition to her.
Scalia is saying that particular criticism is off base. That having someone who has not been a judge and has instead been a practitioner is actually a good thing. There are a variety of reasons this is correct if you're at all familiar with e-discovery and some of the big issues affecting commercial litigation in his country.
So while Scalia's statement is not an endorsement of Miers in particular, it is an explicit rejection of one of the primary arguments advanced against her.
"... 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.
You're misreading it. He's referring to the fact that Rehnquist was the last sitting member of the Court to come to the Court without a prior judicial background; he's not talking about replacing an individual justice.
It sounds to me as if this interview was taped between Rehnquist's death and Bush's announcement that he would nominate Roberts for the CJ spot instead of O'Connor's seat.
"The reference to Rehnquist is that he is the last one and is now gone, thus someone without the judicial experience would be good to have to replace the void left by Rehnquist....."
And the Rehnquist void is being filled by Judge John Roberts, who has judicial experience.
Reinquist was the Chief Justice. Roberts replaces him in that regard.
Reinquist was also the judge on the Supreme Court without prior experience as a judge. Miers will replace him in that regard.
Scalia is particular pointing out issues in regard to the advantages of having judges on the Supreme Court who were not judges before. So he is directing his remarks more at Miers than Roberts.
Furthermore, it is Miers that is the controversy this week, not Roberts. Roberts is already seated, without serious controversy, and presumably Scalia is happy with that state of affairs. There is no controversy there for Scalia to address, and almost certainly he has no motivation to be stirring one up over Roberts, either.
Pray for W and Harriet Miers
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.