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
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..
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??
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.
We do what we can with the Republicans. We're not going to help elect another Clinton. No thank you!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Slam dunk. Game over.
Liar.
Politics sucks.
CHENEY: I do.
VP Cheney seems to accept W (and the ticket) made such claims.
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.