Thanks for the link, but I don't think we can safely assume that the transcript there is the FULL content of what was said.
Think about it - if Dubya's trying to backpedal (which I'm convinced he is), do you think they'd leave those comments up in the transcript? (Um, no).
So this is what we've been reduced to? Making up conspiracy's that the Whitehouse has gone back and deleted references to Thomas and Scalia? I guess we could believe that....or we could believe that maybe your memory isn't as accurate as you believe it to be. Based on the tone of your posts on this thread, I know which of those choices I tend to believe.
This argument is pure sophistry anyway. "Oh, you can't find where he said exactly that, so you aren't justified in expecting a strict constructionist."
The term "strict constructionsit" is so indefiniate as to be useless. O'Connor and Souter probably assert that they fit that mold. So to disambiguate the term "strict constructionist," it is convenient to name some examples. There is no dispute, Bush said "strict constructionst", "not legislate from the bench" "faithfully interpret the laws under the Constitution," and similar. As a matter of offerin a benchmark for what that meant, he offered Scalia and Thomas.
If somebody wants to argue that he didn't make that promise, then the person advancing the argument is just looking for a word game fight.
Some folks just get stuck on stupid.
I know it sucks to be wrong, but why don't you just admit that you were? This is ridiculous.