And you have conveniently forgotten that you were supposed to provide a source for Bush promising to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Bush is responding to Russerts question "Which Supreme Court justice do you really respect?" when he mentions Scalia by name. But when Russert asks him what he looks for when considering a Supreme Court nominee, Bush clearly says, "I'd like to know are we compatible from a philosophical perspective on a wide range of issues. But the most important view I want to know is are you a strict constructionist, Mr. Jurist? Will you strictly interpret the Constitution or will you use your bench as a way to legislate? That's the kind of judges I've named in the state of Texas. On of the--I've got a record on this."
I have not forgotten that I was "supposed" to provide a source. That was not my promise, only your charge. I looked around and foud that Bush DID at least intend to create that impression, whether he actually said those words or not. Politics is not Science nor the Law. It's, among other things, being able to speak with ambiguity to attract the most supporters and repel the minimum of potential voters. Lot's of people apparently "heard" the "message". As with Souter, the expectation of more SCJs in the mold of Scalia and Thomas has been "underachieved".