[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.

[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.

[Map Kernow]

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?

You mean no one has the right to take Scalia's remarks as an endorsement of Miers? OK, then, what Scalia said is irrelevant to any discussion of the Miers' nomination. You can't have it both ways: either he was referring to the Miers' nomination but didn't want to be criticized for commenting on the qualifications of a current nominee, or his remarks are not to be taking as meaning anything pertinent to Miers. That was my point. You either didn't get it, or wanted to distort it.

I mean, you wouldn't try to mislead anybody would you?

I haven't misled anyone here about how long I've been a member, now have I?