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
And that he has done. I gave him my trust on judiciary appointments when I voted for him both times. I verified that giving him that trust was the right thing to do after watching his appointment of 200 some odd judges.
The least I can do after that is respectfully listen to Harriet Miers in the hearings and then make my decision on her, not that my decision means much mind you.
He has earned that, IMHO.
34
Steve Prost
Posted on October 15th, 2005 at 8:01 pm. About 'A Civil “Civil War”'.
13:Spending just a couple seconds googling, I at least found this quote during the Oct 3 2000 debate where Gore states that Bush told a prolife group he would appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia and Thomas” and Bush did not correct him or say anything in different in any response or afterword. Its something ’til something else is dug up, and this may be one of those statements he gave to prolife groups which transcripts are no longer available but witnesses repeated it commonly then and he or anyone else have never rebutted it knowing it to be true. Maybe we’ll find more:
GORE: Well, Jim, the FDA took 12 years, and I do support that decision. They determined it was medically safe for the women who use that drug. This is indeed a very important issue. First of all on the issue of partial birth or so-called late-term abortion, I would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the ability to save a woman’s life or to act if her health is severely at risk. That’s not the main issue. The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overturned. I support a woman’s right to choose. My opponent does not. It is important because the next president is going to appoint three and maybe even four justices of the Supreme Court. And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman’s right to choose. Here is the difference. He trusts the government to order a woman to do what it thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. And I think a woman’s right to choose ought to be protected and defended.
MODERATOR: Governor, we’ll go to the Supreme Court question in a moment, but make sure I understand your position on RU-486. If you’re elected president, you won’t support legislation to overturn this?
BUSH: I don’t think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.
MODERATOR: That means you wouldn’t, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to —
BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it’s been made unless it’s proven to be unsafe to women.
GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order — he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision.
BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.
MODERATOR: On the Supreme Court question. Should a voter assume — you’re pro-life.
BUSH: I am pro-life.
MODERATOR: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the supreme court or any other court, federal court, will also be pro-life?
BUSH: The voters should assume I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. Voters will know I’ll put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they’re appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn’t misuse their bench. I don’t believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists.
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1611
Outstanding point, Congressman Billybob. Thank you.
We still do not know about Roberts. In the final analysis, we took him on faith. So did President Bush, and all the conservative glitterati. Now many of those same glitterati have turned into a howling mob, willing to throw everything away if they can just destroy Harriet Miers.
The mob does not know either Roberts or Miers. But President Bush knows Harriet Miers. Either President Bush is worthy of trust, or he is not. I choose to trust the President.
I trust President Bush to appoint the most conservative person he can get confirmed.
Politics sucks.
Good point, Jim.
Posted on October 15th, 2005 at 8:23 pm. About 'A Civil “Civil War”'.
And then (arguably going to the right of “Anthony” (sic) Scalia who thinks the term is too ’strict’) the famous interaction in 2004 which Professor Bainbridge provides good analysis of at http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/10/hewitt_and_mirg.html
“GOV BUSH: The most primary issue–the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?
MR. RUSSERT: Will your judges and judge appointments to the Supreme Court be similar to Scalia in their temperament and judicial outlook?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I don’t think you’re going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He’s an unusual man. He’s an intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down. He’s witty, he’s interesting, he’s firm. There’s a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia. And I like a lot of the other judges as well. I mean, it’s kind of a harsh question to ask because it now pits me–some of whom are friends of mine. I mean, it’s–and so, in all due respect, Judge Thomas.”
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1611
Everything.
Bush nor any of his cabinet ever disavowed this
Wolf
Jess, I don't believe that's your take at all. If it actually was, then you'd be advocating U.S. citizens refrain from any comment whatsoever, unless they were running for office. With that attitude you wouldn't even approve of participating on a forum like this.
With that attitude when a Bill Clinton came along you'd remain silent unless you decided to run for office against him. No, I don't think that's your take at all.
I doubt you approve of Bush's elevated spending outside the War on Terrorism. You may not agree with open borders. Do you plan on remaining silent on those issues as well as the Supreme Court nominee?
"I think CONSERVATIVES better quit bickering and do as has been done for years, be sure to vote in primaries. Very few do."
That's the best advice. The nature of a party is shaped through those sets of elections, and with concerted effort, directed one way or another. Somehow, conservatives managed to get Goldwater on the ticket in '64, against the wishes of the party establishment. It *can* be done.
What I find puzzling, however, was that I thought primaries tended to lean conservative, in Republican races. That's one of the reasons why McCain lost for the '00 nomination. The only thing I can think of as to why there's so many lousy GOP reps in D.C. is because of incumbancy. Party members tend to be loyal enough to keep the same congressmen, senators, and so on, on the ticket once they're already there. That's why Arlen Specter got through in the '04 primaries - conservatives knew better, but thought he'd at least be there for them on some of the votes in the Senate. It would have been better to boot him out before the November election last year, and gone with Toomey instead.
"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."
I'm not sure about the first assertation. Republicans never had 60 conservative senators and got Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist through. And wasn't Suter supposedly anti-abortion at the time of his hearings, too?
Getting a non-activist Justice through *is* possible. Not likey on the first number of attempts. But eventually, and with enough political capital spent, the base can be satisfied.
As Bush's record has shown, he is incapable of such a confrontation. He could do it, though, if he really wanted too, IMO.
I would trust him more if he hadn't betrayed my trust in other areas. I do not love saying that, but that fits the facts. You know the list.
"He didn't. You are wrong."
If not, he sure as hell got a lot of unearned votes from conservatives across the country.
Bamboozled.
"He promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas when he promised strict constructionists"
If he promised strict constructionists, how does he know that Miers is one too? She's never been a judge. No record to measure up against.
Roberts had a relevant paper trail. He was not "taken on faith."
"How about this: He's known her personally and worked with her for years? That would be first-hand experience."
A strict constructionist is a type of judge. If she's never been a judge, how does he know what type she will be? There is no way for him to know.
I agree with you Frank. And "I know her heart" just doesn't cut it for me.
I know of no list where Bush has made a campaign promise and then broken it.
Amen! Even FR's own poll on the subject showed that a large majority either want to wait for the hearings or support Ms. Miers outright.
President Bush deserves his fair share of blame for that, but I do think the fiercest condemnations have been directed at petty party functionaries and flacks like Scott McClellan, Ed Gillespie, Mark Mehlman, and the ever-contemptible, NE Rockefeller dimwit-who should never have been appointed WH Chief of Staff-Andy Card.
I'll give Rove the benefit of the doubt-until it's proven that he did support the Miers pick-but don't expect me to refrain from excoriating toadying crap-weasels like Card and Gillespie.
There's more, but I'll leave it with that one.
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.