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
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.
Looks like the "in the mold of..." words never crossed Bush's lips. Suburban myth ;-)
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
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!
Neither could I. I would vote against Hillary who ever runs against her. IF she in the nominee.
So you have no reservations about this appointment at all right?
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.
Your agenda is to have Gonzalez appointed next?
How is her strongly supporting the 2nd amendment left?
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.
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."
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.
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.
Are Scalia and Thomas strict constructionists? Yes or no.
He never said it, but you heard it, right?
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.
Yes
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!"
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.