Scalia is saying that particular criticism is off base.
My observation disagrees somewhat with that. I don't believe the objections to her not having sat on the bench are per se. "Sat on the bench" is one way that a potential jurist reveals their judicial philosophy, but it is not the only way. One must infer Miers constitutional temperament from information. There is very little where she has expressed it directly.
Scalia is saying that never having been a judge is not a disqualifing factor. And of course, it is not. I don't see anything in Justice Scalia's comments that show an opinion one way or the other about "the politics" of selecting a Justice.
It is undeniable that many conservaitves are disappointed in the pick, but not necssarily in the person, Harriet Miers. The pick sparked a bit of a political firestorm. And instead of defending and advocating constitutional principles, we are collectively engaged in defending "the pick." And nary a peep or objection from the GOP about the gang of 14 or the anti-constitutional 60 vote supermajority. Even the President appears to have capitulated to THAT.
No argument there. The consolation to me is that the people who have known her the best are the ones who are the most confident. When Leonard Leo endorses her as strongly as he did, that's a very positive sign. He's worked closely with her regarding past picks, so he should know her mind, and his own judicial conservative credentials are about as solid as you could want.
And nary a peep or objection from the GOP about the gang of 14 or the anti-constitutional 60 vote supermajority. Even the President appears to have capitulated to THAT.
I hate it too, but unfortunately, there's not much Bush can do about that absent a Senate majority of non-Dems/RINOS.