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

[Frank T]

"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..."

She used to be a Catholic, but converted.

I suppose she'll convert from a Scalia into a Souter if she gets in the Supreme Court, too.

[wmfights]

"there WILL be hell to pay in '06 and '08 - regardless of whether that means HRC in the WH or not.
I can't believe you just said that!"

WHY NOT! The PUBS are treating us, the base, like the RATS treat union members. They ignore us and our concerns until election time, we vote for them, then they ignore us again.
Absolutely nothing has been done to bring the RINO's under control and infact one of them runs the judiciary committee.

[Frank T]

"Let me get this straight...you are trusting something that Al Gore said during a debate?!?!?!...The man is a proven liar."

So if he said the sky is blue, it therefore is not blue? Just because Gore said it was?

[Colonial Warrior]

Oh, for pete's sake. Chill out.

Unless you have a really big keyboard on your computer...you are just one person...don't think for a minute there is a mindless clone Army behind you to follow your orders --- I am right...yes?

The last time I checked...the Constitutional procedure has not changed for selection of a SCOTUS...President nominates, Senate advises and consents, etc. What has changed is the OTHER SIDE (commonly referred to by us the *good guys* as the DARK SIDE) have held the A&C hearings hostage.

We all have clamored for a FAIR up or down vote by the Full Senate. Let's have that system work. Feel free to irritate the Heck out of the Senators expressing your choice for their vote.

Threats to join the DARK SIDE just means we work harder -- and you miss our next Picnic. [grin!]

So, come on. Agree to disagree or whatever...we are still a FR Family ya know.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If the truth is spoken by a known liar it's still the truth. That said, we should continue to research this before we conclude he didn't actually say it.

[AmericaUnited]

The people who are upset with this nomination are the fathest thing from self centered as can be.

Oh really?! So people who say they'll gladly destroy the country (help elect Hitlery) to make their point are somehow what ... Super Patriots? Don't make me laugh.

[Frank T]

"You will be a useful idiot to Hitlery, just like the Perot people were for Bill."

Are you suggesting that Bush41 was any better a choice than Bill Clinton or Ross Perot?

None of them were conservative, so it doesn't matter who won between the three.

One good thing about Clinton as President was that it allowed the brief "Republican Revolution." That would NOT have happened if Bush41 won re-election.

Sometimes you have to have a Jimmy Carter before you get a Reagan.

[AmericaUnited]

Actually, I could hear those words coming from the mouths of many liberal Republicans as they describe conservatives who have worked so hard in getting them elected.

Yes, no doubt, but I'd rather have it come from them than from the evil side.

[B Knotts]

FWIW, I was at a few rallies in 2000, including a "town hall meeting," and I thought I remembered the same thing, but thought my memory must be foggy. Thanks for clearing that up.

[uncbob]

This is his "read my lips" moment. Actually, it's 100X worse.

Actually it will be his second
First was CFR

[TSchmereL]

It will be shown that George W. Bush did say he would appoint judges “in the mold” of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

"How are Harriet Miers's qualifications and known beliefs NOT like Thomas's, before his confirmation?"

Justice Clarence Thomas had already been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1991. In 2000, Justice Clarence Thomas had a clear record as a conservative and a constitutional originalist. In 2000, everyone knew what George W. Bush meant when he said he would appoint originalist judges and used Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as examples.

George W. Bush did not say that he would appoint judges like Clarence Thomas as Clarence Thomas was known back in 1991 when his record was less clear and many Conservatives still had doubts about him.

In 2000, George W. Bush DID NOT PROMISE he would nominate a STEALTH candidate who we would have to TRUST to be like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Bush backed down from a much needed PUBLIC debate on Conservative values. By doing so, he has created a real incentive for judges who aspire to be nominated to higher courts to avoid creating clear conservative records for themselves.

And that is not a good thing.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Uh, but calculus is usually three semesters!<<<

My 4th course was differential equations.

[jdhljc169]

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"?

****

Well, let's see, don't kill me, but I didn't vote that year. At the time I wasn't paying much attention to politics. I had lost interest after the Clinton years, and what with the birth of my 4th child, a lot of my time and energy went into that. So no, I didn't watch the debates.

And I'm not the only one thinking along those lines. Several people have posted that very quote on this thread. Care to ask them the same questions?

[Paladin2]

Roberts seemed to have an excellent grasp of the issues and relevant case law citations memorized (perhaps better - internalized), even if he is not truly a strict constructionist. We'll see about Miers, but it sure doesn't look good.

[Cboldt]

So people who say they'll gladly destroy the country (help elect Hitlery) to make their point are somehow what ... Super Patriots?

You are a party apologist. You want to help the party? Attract voters.

If you came to my door with the attitude you showed me here, I'd slam the door in your face. Godd day.

[Stellar Dendrite]

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003657.html

Bush's past promises on Supreme Court nominees

Now that our president is openly talking about nominating to the Supreme Court his friend Alberto Gonzales, whom no one but no one considers to be a Scalia-like opponent of the "living Constitution," it's worth remembering what Mr. Bush has said about this subject in the past. This is from an Alan Keyes action alert:

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Gov. George W. Bush repeated a number of times that, if elected and if a Supreme Court slot opened up, he would nominate a judge that held the same judicial philosophy as Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

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.

[JCEccles]

It was in a 1999 "Meet the Press" interview with Tim Russert that then-Governor Bush identified Scalia by name as the SCOTUS justice he most admired.

Moreover, it was in the first presidential campaign debate in 2000 that, in Bush's presence, it was said quite clearly that he intended to put justices on SCOTUS "who were in the mold" of a Scalia or a Thomas. Bush had every opportunity to deny it, or to modify it, but he let . . . it . . . ride.

That, my friends, is a powerful tacit admission that he fully agreed with the statement.

Bush rode the wave of conservative support to victory in TWO presidential elections because his conservative supporters were absolutely persuaded he would appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court. Bush did not disabuse them of this notion. He darn well knew they expected it. Indeed he fed that expectation with his constant praise for Scalia and Thomas whenever the issue of SCOTUS vacancies came up.

Now Miers' supporters are saying, "But HE DIDN'T USE THOSE WORDS!"

What the Miers supporters are doing is stealing a page from Bill Clinton's word game playbook to argue that the irrefutable is not merely refutable, it never happened.

Do they really think the rest of us are that stupid?

[Mo1]

Waiting for the hearings is, IMHO, pointless. Miers will no doubt adopt the Ginsburg strategy, leaving many unanswered questions on her positions.

I don't expect her to tell us how she would rule on a case before it comes to the Court

Though I do expect to see if she has a true understanding of the Constitution .. cases that have come before the Court and who exactly makes the laws .. ampong other things

[Frank T]

"I can't believe you just said that!"

If I was forced to choose between McCain and Hillary in '08, I'd vote for Hillary. Not because I'm for a progressive presidency, but because of important example you RINOs out there have shown me: it's more important for us conservatives to vote *against* a candidate, and not for one.

eg. it was important to keep Gore out in '00 and Kerry out in '04.

By that logic, it's more important to keep McCain out, even if it means voting for Hillary.

It's your choice, RINOs.