Posted on 10/15/2005 3:15:52 PM PDT by 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
The people saying "you can't find where he said that" are basically trying to advance the argument that "Bush didn't promise strict constructionists."
An that argument works directly against their "trust him" rationale for supporting Miers.
Frank, that's stupid. "Let's see, A is a super liberal, B is a liberal, C is a moderate, and yup, it does not make any difference who gets elected." A super liberal will vote against you 99.999 percent of the time. At least a moderate will vote with you maybe 50% of the time. It does matter so stop it with the naive prater.
Still not a direct quote...
Scalia and Thomas Still Bush Heroes
by John Gizzi
Posted Jul 3, 2003
Asked by HUMAN EVENTS' John Gizzi if the President stood by his campaign-year words to name Supreme Court justices of the caliber of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer replied: "The President stands by everything he said in the campaign."
Fleischer also noted, however, that Bush named Scalia and Thomas when asked "who on the [Supreme] Court he admires the most" and listed an entire criterion for justices he would appoint. "So the answer [about appointing justices] would be 'all of the above,'" Fleischer told Gizzi.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1140
this type of effort only shows that they too know she's not in the mold of a justice and scalia
As much as I dislike McCain, I could never in a thousand years cast a vote FOR Hillary.
I don't remember the hearings ... Did anyone question them at the time like they are with Meirs now??
Though after the last few weeks ... I'm sure Meirs will be getting tough questionings
Yes, of course Thomas has had an impressive record AFTER his confirmation to SCOTUS!
But before Thomas's confirmation, we had little evidence to go on.
Just like Miers.
Frank, that's gross stupidity. For all of McInsane's faults, he's still a hell of a lot better than Hitlery. Do you really think the RINOS will start crying after 4 or 8 years of Hitlery running the country, "Please Frank, we're sorry, please come back, you taught a lesson..." Some of this is truly funny. Stop having delusional fantasies.
Sigh. You don't even want to go there. We've got folks creating conspiracy theories to avoid admitting obvious facts on the record. Until Miers rips off a mask and reveals she actually is Clarance Thomas, you will never get some people on this site to believe she is anything other than an elderly Monica Lewinsky.
Well, I can look out the window and see the sky is blue, so in that case I would believe algore. But the whole purpose of this thread is to find evidence that George Bush said what algore said he did, and so far the same group of folks who debunked Rather's phony memo in 10 minutes, have found nothing. Zero. Nada. So tell me why I should believe algore in this case?
It may just yet be tactical "strategery".
The Dims expect a full frontal assault of a die-hard conservative nominee, and thus are prepared to slash and burn and filibuster forever.
The Prez just might have been planning a trojan horse nominee, or an end-around play.
Whatever his plan, I can't believe he would knowingly or willfully fail to deliver just what he knows his party, and the country needs.
The issue is: who will Bush nominate for hte third and fourth possible openings?
This is getting to be way too much like "it depends on what the meaning of is is."
"What is the difference? Leftist Democrats are very comfortable with the secular humanist ideology of their base, and Republicans are deeply uncomfortable with the ideology of their base - religious conservatives, economic conservatives, combination, etc."
And it only gets worse. If the driving force is to defeat Democrats (who still effectively retain veto power), it comes at the expense of conservatism. The more important it is to beat Democrats for the sake of beating them, the less conservative Republican nominees have to be, just as long as they are "electable."
That's another succinct way to put it. Good job.
You totally miss my point.
Bush cheated Conservatives by nominating a STEALTH candidate. Bush referred to Thomas as his model in 1999 and 2000 when Thomas had a clear record. In 2000, everyone knew what Bush was talking about.
So what if Conservatives had doubts about Thomas in 1991? Bush was talking about Thomas eight and nine years later when Thomas was so well known, he would not have been able to go STEALTHLY to a restaurant without being noticed.
Ther'es alot to be said for gridlock.
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 20, 2005
Q When you say "highly qualified," and the President thinks he's uniquely qualified, does the President believe that Mr. Roberts is a strict constructionist in the mold of Mr. Scalia or Thomas?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that Judge Roberts' record is reflected by his time on the court and by the views that he has expressed previously before the Senate Judiciary Committee as he went through that confirmation process. He was someone who was supported by unanimous consent of the United States Senate. That meant that no Democrat on the floor raised an objection to moving forward on his nomination. And he is someone that is highly regarded across the political aisle by lawyers who have known him and gotten to know him over the years, and seen him through this work as an appellate lawyer and then as a judge.
Q So insofar as the President made it clear in his initial campaign that he was going to seek strict constructionists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, can we assume that this is a nominee that fits that bill?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can look at his record. I mean, you all are going to try to attach labels and everything else. You can look at his record and see that he is someone who believes in faithfully interpreting our Constitution and our laws.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050720-6.html
Thomas was just as much as "stealth" candidate when he was nominated, as Miers is now.
That's my memory of it anyway. Anybody who has evidence to the contrary, please post it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.