Replies

GWB :"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? ...

"The most primary issue--the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?"

Rokke: But does he promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Absolutely not. ... many make the claim that "Bush broke his promise" out of ignorance. But some know the truth and still make the claim. That makes them liars.

You argument is based on sophisty and looking for clear-text language by GWB. It's not fair, I don't think, because you are using a technicality to attempt to dissolve an honestly felt sentiment.

The phrase "I expected GWB to nominate judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" is a shorthand for expressing what is in fact, a somewhat subjective expectation.

I am in fact disappointed. The pick does not meet my subjective expectation, which I think is a reasonable interpreation of all the words uttered during the course of the campaign, and since.

For you to flat out call me a liar based on your reasoning is stunning.

CBoldt, I am not calling YOU a liar. I don't believe you are. If you are saying " "I expected GWB to nominate judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" that is a completely honest and accurate (assuming you know your own expectations) statement. What isn't accurate is the statement "George Bush promised he would appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." You are not saying that. And I have no problem with what you are saying. It is clearly your opinion.

You argument is based on sophisty and looking for clear-text language by GWB. It's not fair, I don't think, because you are using a technicality to attempt to dissolve an honestly felt sentiment.

In other words, Clinton speak.