Skip to comments.
Did Bush promise to appoint a justice like [in the mold of] Scalia? Have we been misled?
Media Matters ^
| October 13, 2005
| - J.F.
Posted on 10/15/2005 3:15:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 341-350 next last
To: Cboldt; JCEccles
241
posted on
10/15/2005 5:47:29 PM PDT
by
Stellar Dendrite
( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
To: frannie
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 I hear Goerhard Schroeder is looking for work.
242
posted on
10/15/2005 5:47:51 PM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: Frank T
Why is it that conservatives have to settle for 50%'er? You should be selling that idea to liberals, not us. Why? Because we don't have 51% of the vote locked up in every electoral contest. That's why.
To: Rokke
Bush has very clearly stated several times what he looks for in a nominee to the bench. I don't believe he has ever said his nominee's would be in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. I wish we had the complete transcripts of the Bush-Kerry debates in Sept & Oct 2004. I am almost positive that I remember Bush advocating as his standard for the SC, justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas in one or more of the debates.
To: Jim Robinson
Just to show you how ridiculous this question is:
Can you imagine George W. Bush saying, "I never promised a nomination in the mold of Thomas or Scalia?"
Can you imagine George W. Bush defending Miers by saying that?
245
posted on
10/15/2005 5:48:41 PM PDT
by
TSchmereL
("Rust but terrify.")
To: AmericaUnited
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. In case you haven't noticed, Bush is definitely not into confrontation. Just check his veto record (CFR for example).
246
posted on
10/15/2005 5:48:54 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(MSM rioted over Katrina and looted the truth)
To: Paladin2
Gonzales and Rove.
That way he can't be impeached.
247
posted on
10/15/2005 5:50:38 PM PDT
by
Frank T
To: Jim Robinson
My question was on the well-known direct quote popularly attributed to George W. Bush regarding "in the mold of a Scalia."Technically correct. It appears that he himself did not utter these words. They were used in his presence during the first presidential debate in 2000. He heard them, and he didn't deny or correct them. That is likely the closest we'll ever get to linking his lips to this precise phrase.
To: All
Here's what he said in the
2004 debate in St Louis: BUSH: I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.
I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution ...
And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution ...
249
posted on
10/15/2005 5:51:58 PM PDT
by
newzjunkey
(CA: Stop union theft for political agendas with YES on Prop 75! Prolife? YES on Prop 73!)
To: JCEccles
Not quite. I'm looking for the direct quote that's been repeated thousands of times in the news and in postings. Bush promised to "...appointment justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas." Where and when did he say that?
To: Rokke
Do you consider Scalia and Thomas to be "strict constructionists"? If so, then he still made the promise. It doesn't matter if he said it directly. If A = B and B = C then A = C. If Scalia/Thomas are strict constructionists and Bush promised strict constructionists then Bush promised judges like Scalia/Thomas.
To: Rokke
I think it's pretty clear that Roberts and Miers are not to the right of either Scalia or Thomas.
And you still avoid guessing where Bush will go with his next appointment.
252
posted on
10/15/2005 5:52:44 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(MSM rioted over Katrina and looted the truth)
To: Paladin2
I'm beginning to be convinced that so called "moderate centralism" is the real problem. The whole thing with avoiding political fights.
If that's the case, it's best to vote for an "extremist," regardless of whether the candidate is a (R) or a (D). It'll effect change, one way or another, and not cement the status quo.
253
posted on
10/15/2005 5:53:38 PM PDT
by
Frank T
To: newzjunkey
Good find. Either "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" accurately describes Bush's commitment, or he's bamboozled his own VP too.
To: rcrngroup
See
Post 249 on Bush/Kerry debate and SCOTUS nominations. Links to site with transcripts.
255
posted on
10/15/2005 5:54:10 PM PDT
by
newzjunkey
(CA: Stop union theft for political agendas with YES on Prop 75! Prolife? YES on Prop 73!)
To: Jim Robinson
Even without a direct quote, he still is making the promise. The only way it could possibly be viewed that he wasn't promising judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas is if you can prove he didn't view Scalia and Thomas as strict constructionists. That's just not possible, given that he always defined them as favorite justices.
To: shhrubbery!
Bush didn't campaign on stealth candidates. But stating his admiration for Thomas, he is implying he agrees with Thomas' record on the SCOTUS.
To not build on a Thomas or a Scalia is to betray the implied agreement between Bush and the base.
257
posted on
10/15/2005 5:55:43 PM PDT
by
Frank T
To: Frank T
Rove would be OK. I'm thinking that AC or Laura Ingraham or Walter E. Williams would be good, fun, non-judges to have on the SCOTUS.
258
posted on
10/15/2005 5:56:06 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(MSM rioted over Katrina and looted the truth)
To: Rokke
I recall that Bush said that he would appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas during his 2000 debate against al-Gore. I'm not terribly sure of the exact language (or which debate).
Did Bush mislead us? My take: Bush is trying to appoint such a justice; however, the present political situation precludes him from nominating an known conservative. The Senate has rejected many if not most of Bush's appellate court nominees and would subject his Supreme Court nominees to special ideological certainty to prevent a judge who might agree with Scalia or Thomas from reaching the bench.
Some on this forum have said that a sufficient number of distinguished Senators have indicated that they would end these Senatorial shenanigans and commence confirming judges. These Senators, however, thus far have failed to accomplish this act and probably lack the testicular fortitude (or feminine fortitude) to act on these indications. As they did last time push came to shove, they almost certainly would quiver, falter, and ultimately defect. Despite their numerical superiority, the Republicans have not asserted themselves as a majority in the United States Senate, and the Democrats effectively occupy that role and practically determine the course and fate of the legislation that it considers.
Given the RINO dominance of the Republican minority in the Senate, Bush faced a Senate that would reject a justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Many RINOs would join the majority in that defection if Bush attempted to replace a more "liberal" justice with a less "liberal" judicial nominee. The Senate also demanded that Bush seek advice from them and respect and follow that advice.
Because of the august traditions of the hallowed Senate and the current Democratic majority therein, Bush must acquiesce in all their demands or face the rejection of his nominee--if the Senate even would bother to consider the nomination (a decision controlled primarily by RINO Specter). And yet he must respect his campaign pledge to nominate a jurist with the Clarence Thomas world view. This situation presents an almost irreconcilably tall order, which Bush chose to solve by pursuing effective stealth nominees--qualified candidates who seemingly meet the criteria that the Senate has imposed but who actually meet his own criteria.
Presidents in far less narrow straits have made mistakes with Supreme Court appointments in the past, and George W. Bush almost certainly has or will appoint one or more justices that do not fulfill his expectations. Bush gave us John Roberts, whose judicial philosophy remains narrow; we can hope that he subscribes to the same view as his predecessor, but he might align himself with Stevens or with Thomas.
The Senate mandated a perceptibly liberal-moderate woman for the O'Conner seat, so Bush searched far and wide. Given the political situation, I believe Bush when he says that Harriet Miers was the best that he could find. She obviously is not an ideal choice, but the bench for confirm-able female nominees is exceedingly thin and exclusively liberal. Several potential nominees declined the dubious honor for fear of the Senate. Without any viable sufficiently conservative female nominees with high-level judicial experience, Bush chose a woman whom he knows and respects--a crony with limited accomplishments and no judicial experience.
What are Miers's chances of reaching the court? I put them around 7%. But if the Senate rejects Miers, I do not expect Bush to put up another nominee until the conclusion of the 2006 election season. Even if he does name a substitute--or if he faces an equally or more hostile Senate in 2007--she will be more assuredly liberal than Miers. Why? Because the Senate will not confirm a conservative. And there aren't enough women who have ascended to high judicial office and continued to masquerade as liberals while awaiting appointment to the High Court before revealing their inner conservatism.
259
posted on
10/15/2005 5:57:06 PM PDT
by
dufekin
(US Senate: the only place where the majority [44 D] comprises fewer than the minority [55 R])
To: TSchmereL
Whatever. You're missing the entire point of the exercise. I was simply looking for the source of a direct quote from Bush. Apparently he never uttered the famous words attributed to him by Gore, Kerry, the MSM, and hundreds of pundits. I'd rather be accurate about our quotes.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 341-350 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson