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
hey guys, see #240
I hear Goerhard Schroeder is looking for work.
Why? Because we don't have 51% of the vote locked up in every electoral contest. That's why.
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.
Gonzales and Rove.
That way he can't be impeached.
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.
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 ...
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?
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.
And you still avoid guessing where Bush will go with his next appointment.
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.
Good find. Either "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" accurately describes Bush's commitment, or he's bamboozled his own VP too.
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.
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.
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.
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.