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

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

[hosepipe]

[ Man, the backpedalling by this administration is sickening. If I didn't know better, I'd swear that "Slick Willy" was back in office..("depends on what you mean by the word 'IS'"). Guess we're now debating.."depends on what you mean by 'in the mold of'". Sickening. ]

LoL... I hear ya..
Is he a lyin RINO? or just an honest RINO misunderestimated?...
Would be funny if it was not postulated on Free Republic.. by serious people..

[Mo1]

It may just yet be tactical "strategery".

I have no idea

I do know that he would not appoint a liberal or anyone leaning liberal

I'm sure she is conservative ...

My questions are how good of a Judge would she make??

[Rokke]

"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?"

And so far, all of you are being proven wrong. So far, the only person who any quotes about nominating "judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" can be attributed to is algore. With that in mind, I would expect to see a lot fewer people condemning George Bush for "breaking his promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas." But I doubt I will. Already some people are claiming there is a Whitehouse cover up of all evidence of Bush ever saying that. And others are saying it doesn't really matter what Bush actually said. It only matters what we think he said. And still others are condemning him for not saying he didn't say what nutcases like algore said he said. It really is almost amusing.

[Jim Robinson]

We do what we can with the Republicans. We're not going to help elect another Clinton. No thank you!

[AmericaUnited]

Have we been misled, and if so, by whom?

I think the real question is "What does Bush claim about Miers?"

Bush has said again and again that he believes Miers will strictly interpret the Constitution and exercise judicial constraint. So either Bush is flat out lying, or he's wrong about Miers. If, as many claim, he is just wrong, then he's misled no one, since he himself thinks the promise has been fulfilled.

Miers had helped push Roberts' nomination through the Senate, and Bush said that "she will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench."

I guess this guy is duped by Miers too. "She has been a forceful advocate of conservative legal principles and judicial restraint throughout her career," said Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society.

[Colonial Warrior]

Thank you JimRob!! Never doubted you.

Can't you just imagine, the slime picks Shillery would surround herself with and appoint to critical positions within the country...and worse overseas. ***Shudder***

Dang...Rev Jackson as Sec of State *eeeeyewww*, Michael Moore as....snip!

As long as we keep control...we have the helm and can navigate and set the course of the ship.

Keep the overall picture in mind...losing a battle does not mean with lose the war! And yes, I more than most, hate to ever lose a battle!

[Paladin2]

The issue is still that Bush's appointments are heading away from people in the mold of Scalia and Thomas (and Renquist). Who will he nominate as his third pick? Likely someone yet farther to the left.

[AmericaUnited]

The issue is: who will Bush nominate for hte third and fourth possible openings?

Now we're talking. I've always said that he would nominate the 'nuclear candidate'. That would be the right time to go for the throat, since that nominee would push the court well over the tipping point.

[Stellar Dendrite]

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/10/hewitt_and_mirg.html

I went onto Nexis and pulled up the transcript of Bush's November 21, 1999 Meet the Press interview. Here's what Bush said on point:

MR. RUSSERT: Would you want to know the views of a potential Supreme Court justice on abortion before they were appointed, not for a litmus test but just know their views?

GOV. BUSH: Well, let me tell you what I'd like to know. 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've named four Supreme Court justices in our state. As you know, we elect judges in Texas. But when there's a vacancy, I name, and I do.

MR. RUSSERT: Which Supreme Court justice do you really respect?

GOV. BUSH: Well, that's--Anthony [Ed: sic] Scalia is one.
----
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051004-1.html

THE PRESIDENT: [...]

Secondly, she knows the kind of judge I'm looking for -- after all, she was a part of the process that selected John Roberts. I don't want somebody to go on the bench to try to supplant the legislative process.

---

I'm interested in people that will be strict constructionists, so we -- and I've told that to the American people ever since I started running for office. I said, vote for me, this is the kind of judges I'll put on the bench.

---

------

perhaps we cant quite find direct quotes right now but ANYONE here who is intellectually honest KNOWS who he is talking about when he says STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS.

come on people...do you really think he was talking about ginsberg, souter, etc?

anyone with a brain knows EXACTLY who he was talking about when he said "strict constructionist".


it really troubles me that we're having to go back to this and reevaluate what he said or what he didnt say. we all know what was said because we followed the campaign day by day.

since the beginning of this whole miers debate we've been TOLD that she'll be just like scalia and thomas.

[TSchmereL]

You still missed my point!

I know that many Conservatives had serious questions about Thomas when he was nominated.

But Thomas was nominated was in 1991.

Bush used Thomas as an example in 1999 . . . eight years later. When Bush referred to Thomas, he was not talking to people who had been living in a cave for eight years.

[Jim Robinson]

My question was on the well-known direct quote popularly attributed to George W. Bush regarding "in the mold of a Scalia." It appears not to be from Bush at all. My question has nothing whatsoever to do with Miers.

[frannie]

The other morning I heard on CSpan that a Supreme Court Justice does NOT have to be a US citizen.

I checked the requirements , as stated in the Constitution and ,well look it up. There really aren't any requirements, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE AN ATTORNEY.

So where do we stand.

I think CONSERVATIVES better quit bickering and do as has been done for years, be sure to vote in primaries. Very few do.

Try to join your local Republican group,and be VOCAL. It wont produce miracles but that is where you start. I did ,but am too old to get too involved,[interested since 1940, only 17 at the time].

I have lived in N.C. for just two years but have joined the local Republican group. Best way to start. It's a very small community in the mountains.

[TSchmereL]

You still missed my point!

I know that many Conservatives had serious questions about Thomas when he was nominated.

But Thomas was nominated in 1991.

Bush used Thomas as an example eight years later--1999.
When Bush referred to Thomas, he was not talking to people who had been living in a cave for eight years.

[Rokke]

"The issue is still that Bush's appointments are heading away from people in the mold of Scalia and Thomas (and Renquist). Who will he nominate as his third pick? Likely someone yet farther to the left."

You really have no idea of knowing whether or not that is true. Thomas was a great unknown when he was nominated. His record was almost as sparse as Meirs and certainly more sparse than Roberts. It was predicted by the folks at National Review that he would perform similar to Souter. Nothing is clear until the judges actually sit on the bench. AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN. Do you think Reagan and Bush I intentionally put weak conservatives (at best) on the court? I don't. Until we verify one of us is clairvoyant, any predictions about what kind of justice Roberts or Miers will be on the court are worth about as much as all the rest of the opinions we post on this site. Not much.

[Frank T]

"At least a moderate will vote with you maybe 50% of the time. It does matter so stop it with the naive prater."

Why is it that conservatives have to settle for 50%'er? You should be selling that idea to liberals, not us.

[JCEccles]

Slam dunk. Game over.

[Cboldt]

ANYONE here who is intellectually honest KNOWS who he is talking about when he says STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS.

Liar.

[Jim Robinson]

Politics sucks.

[Paladin2]

Where I now live it's much like Alabama in the late 60's. The real election is the 'Rat primary. The November election is 95% a foregone conclusion. So if there is a weak Republican candidate, vote for the more/most conservative 'Rat, if there is a competitive Republican, vote for the weakest 'Rat. That's about it except for Presidential elections.

[newzjunkey]

HANNITY: So in that sense, the President’s promise, you believe, has been fulfilled, and that is that she fits the mold of a Scalia and a Thomas?

CHENEY: I do.

VP Cheney seems to accept W (and the ticket) made such claims.