Did Bush promise to appoint a justice like [in the mold of] Scalia? Have we been misled?

Media Matters ^ | October 13, 2005 | - J.F.

[Jim Robinson]

Did Bush promise to appoint a justice like Scalia? CNN's Bash busted an "urban myth" with a myth of her own, while Fred Barnes changed his story -- then changed it back again

For six years, political figures and interest groups on the left, right, and center, along with reporters and commentators, have noted that during his first presidential campaign, George W. Bush promised to use Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as the model for his nominations to the court. Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes was apparently the first to report this, in a July 1999 article for that magazine. For six years, Barnes and countless others repeated this fact, and neither Bush nor any of his aides seem to have ever challenged it -- in fact, Bush did not contest Al Gore's statement in a 2000 presidential debate that Bush had made such a promise. But in recent months -- when two vacancies gave Bush the opportunity to actually make nominations to the Supreme Court -- an apparent effort to walk back the promise has been under way, with Barnes himself playing a key role through a series of inconsistent statements about his own article.

Most recently, CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash narrated a segment on the October 12 edition of The Situation Room that purported to debunk the "urban myth" that, while campaigning for president, George Bush said that his Supreme Court nominees would be in the mold of Scalia. Bash claimed that the "myth" of Bush's Scalia comments was based on a November 1999 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press in which, as Bash noted, Bush praised Scalia but didn't promise to appoint a justice like him. Bash then said that during a 2000 debate, Gore, Bush's opponent, "connected the dots" -- falsely suggesting that Gore was the first to interpret Bush's Meet the Press comments as a promise to appoint a justice like Scalia. Finally, Bash provided a clue about the source of recent efforts to walk back Bush's promise by stating that "[a] longtime time Bush aide confirms to CNN Mr. Bush didn't actually publicly pledge a Scalia or a [Clarence] Thomas, but they made no effort to clarify."

Contrary to Bash's claim, Bush's Meet the Press appearance was not the original basis for the assertion that Bush promised to appoint a justice in the mold of Scalia. Under the headline "Bush Scalia," Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes wrote in his magazine's July 5-12, 1999, issue:

WHO IS GEORGE W. BUSH'S IDEAL JUDGE, the model for nominees he'd pick for the Supreme Court? Antonin Scalia, that's who. In public comments, of course, Bush has declared his desire, if elected president, to choose judges who interpret the Constitution strictly, and Scalia qualifies on that count. Appointed by President Reagan in 1986, Scalia is one of the most conservative justices on the high court, and is part of the minority that favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. But when asked about the kind of judge he would really want, Bush was quite specific. "I have great respect for Justice Scalia," Bush said, "for the strength of his mind, the consistency of his convictions, and the judicial philosophy he defends."

Bush singled out Scalia in response to a written question I submitted to his presidential campaign. Some Bush aides thought he might cite Clarence Thomas, nominated by Bush's father, President Bush, in 1991, as the model for his judicial appointments. Every bit as conservative as Scalia, Thomas would likewise reverse Roe v. Wade. But Thomas is more controversial as a result of sexual harassment charges made against him by Anita Hill. Bush is not an admirer of his father's other nominee, David Souter, now one of the Court's leading liberals.

Barnes stood by his reporting for six years. Media Matters for America can find no example of either Barnes or any Bush aide correcting the July 1999 article through mid-2005. In fact, Barnes has repeatedly reiterated the point that Bush said he'd name a justice like Scalia -- and has done so as recently as this year...

Excerpted, read the rest here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200510130005

[jstolzen]

Thanks for the link, but I don't think we can safely assume that the transcript there is the FULL content of what was said.

Think about it - if Dubya's trying to backpedal (which I'm convinced he is), do you think they'd leave those comments up in the transcript? (Um, no).

[wmfights]

"The WH spin machine is out in force, I see, trying to get Dubya's fat out of the fire here"

As a life long loyal pub I'm getting awfully tired of having my credibility questioned if I dare to speak out about this terrible mistake.

[Stellar Dendrite]

" I have a clear memory of him using those words."
i do too

[harpu]

"But I have not been successful in finding where he actually stated those exact words... "in the mold of Scalia" etc. If someone knows where he said these words, I'd sure like to see it."

You won't find it because it's something Bush would not put on the record. It's more likely something you interpreted as being said by Bush that was actually said by a MSM commentator or writer.

But that's okay because when you're king you can hear whatever you want to hear.

[jess35]

i do too

Memory is a funny thing, isn't it?

[jdhljc169]

I don't believe he has ever said his nominee's would be in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.
***
I just posted this in another thread. The way that Gore stated it in the debate makes me think that Bush did say it at some point and Gore was calling him on it.

I also don't trust Media matters as far as I can throw them. George Soros, from what I understand, is behind them. And I have caught them in so many lies, misrepresentations, etc., it's not even funny.

[Stellar Dendrite]

it sure is jess!!!

-----
""Throughout the year, Bush tried to frame the issue in terms of philosophy, saying his ideal nominees would base their judgments strictly on the words of the Constitution. Pressed to name a justice who fits that mold, Bush pointed to Scalia and Thomas." Associated Press, December 11, 2000"

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/121100/sup_1211007337.shtml

-----
On "Meet the Press" in 1999, the future President Bush said that the justices he most admired were Scalia and Thomas. Bush referred to Scalia during one of the nationally-televised debates as his favorite Supreme Court judge, and the kind he would nominate during his presidential tenure.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A308_0_2_0_C/sendpage/index.php
----
Cliff Kincaid:

But many stories from the campaign period are quite clear about what Bush said. As noted by the Associated Press, "Throughout the year, Bush tried to frame the issue in terms of philosophy, saying his ideal nominees would base their judgments strictly on the words of the Constitution. Pressed to name a justice who fits that mold, Bush pointed to Scalia and Thomas."

Bush said about Scalia: "The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down" for a visit. Bush said of him, "He's witty, he's interesting, he's firm." Asked whether he thought Thomas was "the most qualified man" Bush's father could have appointed to the high court, the former Texas governor replied, "I do." Bush said that when it came to appointments to the court, "I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy."


----
President Bush promised in 2000 and again in 2004 that he would only nominate strict-constructionist, original-intent judges and justices in the Scalia-Thomas mold," Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said in reference to two of the court's most conservative justices.


-------

[Rokke]

"Thanks for the link, but I don't think we can safely assume that the transcript there is the FULL content of what was said. Think about it - if Dubya's trying to backpedal (which I'm convinced he is), do you think they'd leave those comments up in the transcript? (Um, no)."

So this is what we've been reduced to? Making up conspiracy's that the Whitehouse has gone back and deleted references to Thomas and Scalia? I guess we could believe that....or we could believe that maybe your memory isn't as accurate as you believe it to be. Based on the tone of your posts on this thread, I know which of those choices I tend to believe.

[Frank T]

Here's two things in include on any long term plan

1) Do not vote for any man with the last name "Bush" in future Republican primaries. You can't trust them.

2) Do not vote for any Republican member of the "Gang of 14" in the Senate. That includes McCain.

That's about half of it, lol.

[Ol' Sparky]

I'm not sure going to find exact what you're looking for Jim. Virtually every time the subject came up, Bush was throwing out the names Scalia and Thomas. It's obvious what he was implying. If Bush and members of the administration try to claim otherwise, it will truly be Clintonesque.

Algore actually stated the Bush has promised to appoint such justice to pro-life groups in the Oct. 3, 2000 debates:

" And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choose."

Bush certainly didn't deny having done that.

[AmericaUnited]

this issue is not going to burn itself out.

That's because we have self-centered individuals, wanting to throwing temper tantrums, not giving a damn about burning down the whole edifice, as long as they get to 'feel good' for 10 minutes.

That was a 'classic' example. That individual would not care that this country suffered just incalculable damage, under a Hitlery regime, just because Bush picked Miers. You'd think Bush had packed the court with Ginsberg clones for heavens sake!!!

[jess35]

As I said, memory is a funny thing...and often suggestive. I see nothing in what you posted that quotes the President as saying what many believe he said.

[Stellar Dendrite]

Read again:

" Pressed to name a justice who fits that mold, Bush pointed to Scalia and Thomas." Associated Press, December 11, 2000" "

[Raycpa]

This is the earliest source I can find at it appears to be the authors phrase, not Bush.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:yE6MqBd27WUJ:www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr120799.html+%2B%22in+the+mold+of+Scalia%22+%2B1999+-2005&hl=en

[Killborn]

The example was iffy to say the least. BB could have definitely put it in better terms. But he is by no means a racist or a supporter of infenticide. In fact, it is easier to validate these claims against Bennett's opposition.

[Frank T]

Then count me in as one of your enemies too.

[EternalHope]

First: Does anyone really think a Justice with a long and clearly published track record proving that person would be like Justices Scalia or Thomas would have even the slightest chance of getting confirmed? We do NOT have a conservative majority in the Senate.

45 votes, tops, would ever go for a clearly conservative nominee. ANYBODY we get will have to be carefully obscure to have any chance of confirmation. Case in point: Anyone who thinks we really know how Roberts will work out is lost in dreamland. He could be another Souter, and we would not know (yet).

But back to the topic of this thread: We HAVE been misled. By "conservatives" twisting things in ways that must make DU proud.

Apparently, some people will stoop to whatever depths it takes to derail the nomination of Harriet Miers.

Destroy President Bush? OK, if that will get rid of Miers.

Blow apart the Republican Party? Fine, if that will get rid of Miers.

Hand Congress back to the Democrats? Fine. It's worth it if we can JUST GET RID OF HARRIET MIERS!

I don't get it. WHAT'S SO BAD ABOUT MIERS???

She has lots of real world experience, but hasn't been a judge? SO WHAT! You don't have to be a judge first to be a Supreme Court Justice.

She hasn't published a bunch of scholarly articles? SO WHAT! How many people working in the real world would even consider it?

She was skeptical of the Federalist Society back when it was first founded? SO WHAT! The head of TODAY'S Federalist Society raves about her.

She used to be a Dem, and even contributed to Gore back when Gore was pro-life? SO WHAT! I'd much rather have someone who used to be wrong, but has seen the error of their ways. (An extreme example, St. Paul, comes to mind...)

Which brings up the most disgusting thing of all: She's an EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN! Horrors!!! I'll bet she even thinks all men are created equal, endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights...

I can see reasoned discussion about a Supreme Court nominee, and reasonable disagreement. A lot of us care, a LOT, about reversing the outrageous excesses of our judiciary system, and the Supreme Court in particular. This is one of the most important decisions President Bush will ever make.

But the depths to which this has sunk are deplorable!

Personally, I trust President Bush. I trust him with defending our nation. I trust him with the war in Iraq. And I trust him to do his best to pick the most conservative person he can possibly get confirmed.

[Rokke]

"I just posted this in another thread. The way that Gore stated it in the debate makes me think that Bush did say it at some point and Gore was calling him on it."

Let me get this straight...you are trusting something that Al Gore said during a debate?!?!?! Do you remember those debates? Do you remember what took Gore down more than anything else during those debates? It was his false claims and inaccurate statements. The man is a proven liar. But now you are going to use something he said to "prove" Bush really did say he "promised to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia"?

[Jim Robinson]

Same debate, same file:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html


GORE: And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice groups that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choose.

Here's the difference: He trusts the government to order a woman to do what he thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. And I think a woman's right to choose ought to be protected and defended.

LEHRER: Governor, we'll go to the Supreme Court question in a moment. But, to make sure I understand your position on RU-486, if you're elected president will you not throw appointments to the FDA, you won't support legislation to overturn this?

BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. I think the FDA's made its decision.

LEHRER: That means that you wouldn't throw appointments to the FDA and ask them to reappraise it?

BUSH: I think once the decision's made, it's been made, unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.

GORE: Well, Jim, you know, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement the day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now, that sounds to me a little bit different. And I just think that we ought to support the decision.

BUSH: I said I would make sure that -- that women would be safe to use the drug.

LEHRER: All right, on the Supreme Court question, should a voter assume -- you're pro-life. You just stated your position.

BUSH: I am pro-life.

LEHRER: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the Supreme Court or any other federal court will also be pro- life?

BUSH: Voters should assume that I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. The voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy.

And that's going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that -- I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in -- I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint.

I've named four Supreme Court judges in the state of Texas, and I would ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They're good, solid men and women who have made good sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.

LEHRER: What kind of appointments should they expect from you, Vice President Gore?

GORE: Both of us use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome. I don't favor litmus tests, but I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution. And, in my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history.

And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment.

GORE: And when the phrase "strict constructionist" is used, and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying that the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I mean, just -- it's very clear to me.

And I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade.

LEHRER: Is the vice president right? Is that a code word for overturning Roe v. Wade?

BUSH: Sounds like the vice president is not very right many times tonight. I just told you the criteria in which I'll appoint judges. I've had a record of appointing judges in the state of Texas. That's what a governor gets to do. A governor gets to name Supreme Court judges, and I've given...

[wmfights]

"I've worked, sweated and fought for 25+ years to put (R) candidates into the WH & Congress - for THIS *ONE* reason alone. (Like many others, I'm tired of Judges who make up law where it doesn't exist - particularly when it has the effect of further sending the country to hell in a handbasket). It is time that we fix that. From ALL available evidence, Miers will not accomplish this goal"

Amen Brother!

The blame doesn't just rest with GWB and his "get along attitude" but also the unwillingness of the senate PUBS to bring the McVain 7 under control. The SCOTUS nominees has always been a LEADERSHIP issue and the PUBS are not showing themselves capable in this area.