Posted on 10/15/2005 3:15:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
If seriously you think that, then you aren't being honest with yourself. The venom heaped on Harriet Miers and President Bush on these threads has been extreme and sickening. You've been one of the most active participants in piling it on.
It is one thing to be opposed to her nomination. That's fair and it's everyone's right as Americans. It is quite another thing to trash a woman who appears to have led an exemplary life up one side and down the other, over and over and over again in a reactionary frenzy.
But we were talking campaign promises. Bush ran on reforming campaign finance though without infringing the individual right to speech.
When you say you are betrayed you have to offer evidence of that betrayal. Specific promises made that weren't kept. You can't do it because Bush fulfilled almost every single promise, from Tax Cuts to No Child Left Behind and loading the federal courts with conservatives, 200 plus at this counting.
I knew going in what I was voting for. I'm always surprised that others didn't.
Is that you, Eric Foner?
And he signed into law a bill that infringed upon the free speech rights of Americans.
How does that not constitute a betrayal, pray tell?
It was a telling moment whtn Bush publically defended his pro-affirmative action, pro-illegal, La Raza member crony back when Gonzales was floated as a SCOTUS pick - stammering some banality about getting mad when people pick on his friend.
They just haven't had to prove it.
;-)
Perhaps it's just a misreading on my part, but that seems like a reference to liberal members of the Court.
In general, I tend to agree.
Conservatives put their faith in President Bush-and he led them on-but the President never reneged on any specific, explicit campaign promise to appoint jurists who would emulate justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
George W. Bush
Supreme Court + Constitution
No litmus test except interpretation of the Constitution. (Oct 2004)
Prefers strict constructionists, like overturning Dred Scott. (Oct 2004)
No litmus test; just strict constructionist interpretation. (Oct 2000)
No tax money for abortion, but no Pro-Life Amendment either. (Sep 2000)
Supreme Court is wrong: leave abortion to the states. (Jun 2000)
No pro-life pledge; VP & judges will simply be qualified. (Jan 2000)
Would support - but not pursue - a pro-life Amendment. (Jun 1999)
Still not what you're looking for, but I thought we could see how far back the claim goes.
Men make mistakes. I think Bush will see that as his biggest mistake. But betrayal on a campign promise? I don't think so. An affront to the constitution? Definitely.
Bush signed that garbage in 2002. Did you vote for him in 2004? I did because although I was even more exercised over that than you are over Harriet Miers, he overwhelmingly delivered everything he promised to within his power and because he has been excellent vis a vis hunting and killing jihadists.
So, if you voted for Bush in 2000 and then again in 2004, either you could not have been betrayed or betrayal doesn't mean much to you.
Reneged? Hardly. His 200 plus appointments to the trial courts and appellate courts have been almost uniformly excellent and consistent withg his promise to appoint judges who would not legislate from the bench.
The sound principle of judicial review has turned into an intolerable presumption of judicial supremacy. A Republican Congress, working with a Republican president, will restore the separation of powers and reestablish a government of law. There are different ways to achieve that goal - setting terms for federal judges, for example, or using Article III of the Constitution to limit their appellate jurisdiction - but the most important factor is the appointing power of the presidency. We applaud Governor Bush’s pledge to name only judges who have demonstrated that they share his conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution.
I'm just collecting sources. I know this is still not what you're looking for. BTW, it was posted on the PBS site on July 31, 2000.
Though, the platform committees don't necessarily represent the candidates themselves.
Phyllis Schlafly was a member of that one-if I recall correctly-and I'm almost certain that she's considered persona non grata by the current Bush administration.
I know it sucks to be wrong, but why don't you just admit that you were? This is ridiculous.
From a debate with Kerry in 2004
GIBSON: Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Michaelson, over here.
MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?
BUSH: I'm not telling.
(LAUGHTER)
I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.
(LAUGHTER)
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.
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
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.
And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.
Thank you.
GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.
KERRY: Thank you, Charlie.
A few years ago when he came to office, the president said -- these are his words -- "What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts."
And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.
So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody.
Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side.
I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.
What I want to find, if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it -- and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen.
The future of things that matter to you -- in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected?
These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.
So Bush did not make the "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas" statement, at least not in this debate. The implication is there, however, and allowed to stand.
Arguing against Miers detractors on this basis strikes me as Clintonian and weak.
My problem with the Miers nomination is not that she is not a Scalia or Thomas clone. She could be. I don't know. And it is the not knowing that is the point.
Choosing a stealth candidate has an air of cowardice to it.
I'm not calling for her nomination to be withdrawn. I would like to see her performance during the confirmation hearings. However, my vote for Bush in 2004 was cast primarily based on the fact that he would appoint a strict constructionalist, not a pig-in-the-poke to avoid a fight.
"Trust Me" is sounding a lot like "Read My Lips."
Dated March 26, 2001.
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.