Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neutrality
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.

152 posted on 10/09/2005 10:50:17 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: Carl/NewsMax
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.

158 posted on 10/09/2005 10:56:24 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

To: Carl/NewsMax
Don't confuse the Fire Breathers with facts, they are spinning as fast as they can already.
185 posted on 10/09/2005 11:22:57 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

To: Carl/NewsMax
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.

194 posted on 10/09/2005 11:30:56 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is merely Nazism without the snappy fashion sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

To: Carl/NewsMax
For those curious about when this was taped, Russert said Bartimoro sat down with Scalia Saturday night.

Thank you. That should put a stop to "Theory Why This Can't Be Applicable Number Two".

Of course, this is FreeRepublic...

260 posted on 10/09/2005 12:00:23 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (I have an FR stalker, folks. He's already driven one woman off of FR...going for two, I guess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson