[jdhljc169]

Still not a direct quote...


Scalia and Thomas Still Bush Heroes

by John Gizzi
Posted Jul 3, 2003


Asked by HUMAN EVENTS' John Gizzi if the President stood by his campaign-year words to name Supreme Court justices of the caliber of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer replied: "The President stands by everything he said in the campaign."

Fleischer also noted, however, that Bush named Scalia and Thomas when asked "who on the [Supreme] Court he admires the most" and listed an entire criterion for justices he would appoint. "So the answer [about appointing justices] would be 'all of the above,'" Fleischer told Gizzi.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1140

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

It's interesting that he felt the need to clarify the difference between admiring the jusitices and planning to nominate justices just like them. Why would anyone think he wouldn't pick justices just like the ones he most admires?

This is getting to be way too much like "it depends on what the meaning of is is."

[newzjunkey]

Here's what he said in the 2004 debate in St Louis:

BUSH: 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 ...

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 ...