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

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

[Rokke]

"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."

Good thought. I just Googled them up and searched. In the third debate Bush talked about not having a litmus test for selecting his judges. That is about the extent of it.

[Paladin2]

Looks like the "in the mold of..." words never crossed Bush's lips. Suburban myth ;-)

[Mo1]

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.

That is a dishonest response

He has appointed over 200 Judges to the bench and they have been anything but left

You may not like Meirs and that is your right

But to say that President Bush only appoints liberals to the court shows me what your agenda is

[frannie]

I did read some place that they pushed Kennedy as a very conservative. I may be wrong but since I don't know how to research maybe one of the Freepers can check and see what type of credentials he had when nominated.

Thanks!

[frannie]

Neither could I. I would vote against Hillary who ever runs against her. IF she in the nominee.

[DoughtyOne]

So you have no reservations about this appointment at all right?

[Paladin2]

The comment was made with respect to the SCOTUS. Bush as made but two selections. Roberts is not a strict constructionist, but a likely good jurist and certainly knows his stuff wrt the Constitution. Miers is to his left based on her history and of questionable personal intellectual interest in Constitutional issues and certainly short on knowlege and experience in the area.

So, pick one is slightly left (we hope) of Scalia and Thomas and the second is farther to the left (at best). Wher is this heading? See previous comments and think Gonzalez.

[Paladin2]

Your agenda is to have Gonzalez appointed next?

[Mo1]

Miers is to his left based on her history and of questionable personal intellectual interest in Constitutional issues and certainly short on knowlege and experience in the area.

How is her strongly supporting the 2nd amendment left?

[frannie]

Thanks for the comment but I don't think I meant it like you took it.

It was a comment on a stement I read.

It's hard to get an idea in writing, for me, to come out like I wanted it to.

[Cboldt]

Thanks for the comment but I don't think I meant it like you took it. It was a comment on a stement I read.

You did fine. I was making a joke.

The objective qualifications for SCOTUS represent an easy hurdle to cross - Schroeder does qualify under that standard.

The subjective standard is set by the Senate, during its advise & consent procedure. The President is also amenable to hearing from the public, in the interests of serving the wishes of "We the People."

[Rokke]

"If so, then he still made the promise."

No. He didn't. He has answered consistently what kind of judges he will appoint to the bench. You have absolutely no idea how Miers will rule from the bench. None. But he does. He's known her for over a decade. Should I rely on your opinion or his to determine whether he has appointed exactly who he said he would appoint.

[frannie]

Tanks, you make me feel better.

I do feel as if my age [82 years] makes me so far behind the "Freepers", but I am learning much.

I think if we don't quit picking at each other we will destroy what was started here as a forum to DISCUSS facts. To check to see whether comments are true "FACTS" or oft repeated comments.

[Rokke]

"And you still avoid guessing where Bush will go with his next appointment."

Well with all due respect, what in the world would it prove if I did try to guess? Seriously. What if I said Rush Limbaugh. How about Al Franken? My point all along is that people are making too many uneducated guesses regarding this whole issue. I'm certainly not going to contribute.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Are Scalia and Thomas strict constructionists? Yes or no.

[sinkspur]

Even without a direct quote, he still is making the promise.

He never said it, but you heard it, right?

[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)."

He didn't. You are wrong. If you don't believe me, here is a url that will take you to a site that has transcripts of every debate:

http://www.debates.org/index.html

You ask "Did Bush mislead us?" I would say absolutely not. Bush has done exactly what he said he'd do. The fact that the RINO senators you mention and the conservative commentators the liberal media has suddenly decided to listen to can't verify that Miers is not exactly what Bush said he would nominate, means ZERO to me. Talking faces get paid to talk. I still don't know what Senators get paid for. But Bush will be the man held responsible for appointing Meirs. His record on appointing judges is solid all the way back to his days of being governor in Texas. I very much doubt he has decided to cash that in on this appointment.

[Rokke]

"Are Scalia and Thomas strict constructionists? Yes or no."

Yes

[Cboldt]

I think if we don't quit picking at each other we will destroy what was started here as a forum to DISCUSS facts. To check to see whether comments are true "FACTS" or oft repeated comments.

I agree with that. You popped in during a heated time, so the debate forms up on pretty clear sides.

Common sense will show which side is arguing with facts, and which side is arguing with bluster. The first hurdle for figuring out "which is which" is not an easy one. That hurdle is to figure out which side has the burden of persuasion.

Have fun, "youngster!"