Antonin Scalia Defends Miers

Newsmax ^ | 10/9/5

[xsmommy]

yeah, well it pays to read the entire piece before opening one's mouth, i guess... ; ) in any event, i salute you for being open about your misunderstanding and not trying to bluster.

[jdm]

"Scalia was commenting .... not specifically about Miers."

That's what I thought, too, at first.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499418/posts?page=22#22

But I'll refrain from saying any more, at least right now. Any more from me right now would be a case of....

[bray]

Since you don't like GW, who you supporting in '08. We need to hear from our self appointed Conservative gods!

PRay for W and Harriet Miers

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping!

[jdm]

"yeah, well it pays to read the entire piece before opening one's mouth."

I did read the entire piece before commenting -- the problem was that I misinterpreted the context.

[Map Kernow]

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.

Notice he didn't mention Miers by name.

Don't be coy, Tony. Is Miers qualified or not? Are all people without judicial experience "fungible"---is one as good as another?

Another point: Scalia loses nothing by these statements. If---God forbid---Miers is confirmed, he has her good will. If she isn't, he has Bush's good will. A win-win for Scalia. *YAWN!*

[counterpunch]

I predict she's not going to be approved.
Here is how it will go:

Democrats will demand all the documents Miers handled in her 5 years in the White House.
Bush will refuse.
Democrats will oppose on these grounds.
A handful of dissatisfied Republicans will join them, and Miers will go down in flames.

[thoughtomator]

Sitting justices aren't going to say anything critical of nominees, period. They may have to work with that person the rest of their lives.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Incredible, isn't it? They'll do anything to explain this away, including deliberately misunderstanding it.

Sheesh.

[Howlin]

Don't be coy, Tony. Is Miers qualified or not?

You've been such a know-it-all about this, why don't YOU provide ANY link and/or news article where ANY sitting Supreme Court judge has EVER commented on the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee?

We can all wait while you find them, since I'm sure you have them, making such a declarative statrment as that, right? I mean, you wouldn't try to mislead anybody would you?

Let's have it, Map.

[Howlin]

It's the biannual "let's take back the GOP" attempt by the Two Percenters. They can't win on their own, so they have to suck the life out of the GOP.

They're like those aliens who invaded Earth in Independance Day.

[Carl/NewsMax]

Curiously, I can't find another source for these quotes. They somehow sound familiar, however.

If you watched "Meet the Press" this morning, they would sound familiar. Russert broadcast the clip from Bartiromo's interview of Scalia.

A few points. Scalia was talking about Miers, not Roberts. My reference (not Scalia's) to her as a replacement for "Chief Justice Rehnquist" was intended only to fully identify Rehnquist.

When Scalia says: "There is now nobody with that background after the death of the previous chief" - he means somebody like Rehnquist, with no judicial expperience. His subsequent comments referencing Rehnquist, Powell and White make this amply clear.

And while Scalia didn't specifically mention Miers, I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest Scalia didn't have Miers in mind when he's rebutting one of the primary arguments against her in the midst of the raging firestorm over her nomination.

In fact, it would be totally inappropriate for a sitting Justice to comment on the qualifications of a specific nominee by name - so Scalia was probably being as specific as circumstances allow.

For those curious about when this was taped, Russert said Bartimoro sat down with Scalia Saturday night.

[Raycpa]

When I think about this, this is huge. I would think that Scalia cares very deeply about the issues he has decided and will decide. The future makeup of the court has to be the single most important thing to him right now.

If he didn't want Miers appointed, his best actions at this time would be to keep quiet or to opine that experience is helpful. It would be easy. He would simply say he didn't want to effect the outcome.

If he wanted her appointed, he would find a reporter and do his best to stay objective but further her cause to be approved.

The fact he furthered her cause to be approved strongly suggests he wants her on the court.

[TAdams8591]

Oh, there are not many others who are far better qualified?

[ThePythonicCow]

You're welcome.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

The post was suggesting that Bush supporters are unwilling to hear the facts here, when in reality, it's the other way around.

It wasn't intended to insult you. I knew that right away. It was intended to insult people like me.

Nothing personal, but maybe you need another cup of coffee. It doesn't seem as though you're grasping what anybody means today. ; )

[TAdams8591]

A really disingenuous argument, Howlin. I'm surprised at you.

The subject of our disagreement, IS her nomination.

[Raycpa]

My reference (not Scalia's) to her as a replacement for "Chief Justice Rehnquist" was intended only to fully identify Rehnquist.

There should be no confusion, Roberts is no longer a nominee.

[Howlin]

Since when is the truth disengenuous?

It's done.

[bethtopaz]

I totally agree about Ann Coulter. She discredits herself with her constant angry chiding.