The article should be read in its entirety, but the following excerpts give a clue to answers to the question posed here.
"Presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore both predict their election would tip the Supreme Court balance of power on divisive social issues.
"The search for that prize may best define their differences.
The vice president has said, "I will appoint justices to that court who understand, and reflect in their decisions, the philosophy that our Constitution is a living and breathing document . . . intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."
"Mr. Bush has stated, "I'll name people who strictly interpret the Constitution and who do not use the bench from which to legislate.
"I've named four highly competent, very good judges . . . bright legal minds and judges who believed they should interpret the law, not make it," the Texas governor said, referring to the justices he appointed to the state Supreme Court.:
[edit]
SHAPING THE COURT "The extent to which the next president can shape the court depends on which justices leave vacancies.
[edit]
The article continues:
"Both have managed to tiptoe through semantic traps about a "litmus test" on Roe vs. Wade or other hot buttons like affirmative action, gun rights and the constitutional protection of homosexuality.
"When the issue of the Supreme Court came up in the presidential debate Oct. 3, the candidates stuck close to their previous statements on the subject.
"'The voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy,'" said Mr. Bush.
"Mr. Gore said: 'In my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history. . . . And I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe vs. Wade.'"
In a Section entitled, "AN ELECTION ISSUE," are these telling paragraphs:
". . . a number of liberal interest groups have mounted advertising and public relations campaigns to target Mr. Bush on the court-appointment issue.
"'Our whole way of life is at stake,'" Barbra Streisand said at a $5 million Hollywood fund-raiser. 'I shudder at how a more conservative court can put at risk all we hold dear.'"
[edit]
"Still, on the issue of abortion, both candidates deny harboring a litmus test for judges.
"Mr. Gore says, 'I am confident that without using a single case as a litmus test that there are ways to understand whether or not a potential nominee has an interpretation of the Constitution that is consistent with mine.'"
"Mr. Bush states, 'There will be no litmus test except for whether or not the judges will strictly interpret the Constitution.'"
[edit]
The section entitled, "IN THE MOLD," seems to contain the summary of how that phrase became used in commentaries by pundits in both the print and other media.
It says:
"Bush opponents, such as the advocacy group People for the American Way, have targeted the Texas governor on the grounds he would select judges 'in the mold' of Justice Scalia. Mr. Bush injected Justice Scalia's name while answering a television interviewer's question about which justice he 'really respects.' But Mr. Bush cautioned that Justice Scalia could not be a model.
"'I don't think you're going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He's an unusual man,'" Mr. Bush told Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said his choices would be "compatible from a philosophical perspective."
"The attack began Jan. 21, a day after the Christian Science Monitor paraphrased the television comments this way: 'George W. Bush has said he would seek out justices in the same mold as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.'"
"That phrase, 'in the same mold,' was quickly picked up by PAW President Ralph Neas in speeches and in the group's "Right Wing Watch."
"'If any of you are considering backing George W. Bush,'" Mr. Neas said on Jan. 21, 'let me urge you to consider the impact of his pledge to appoint three or four new justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Freedom of expression, separation of church and state, civil rights, and gay rights - we'd be turning back the clock 40 or 60 years.'"
"Labor unions, columnists and the Gore campaign followed suit.
"'Gore's opponent has indicated his preference for appointments in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas,'" Gore campaign spokesman Chris Lehane said.
"In the Oct. 3 presidential debate, Mr. Bush stated: 'I don't believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint.'"
"Mr. Gore responded: 'When the phrase `strict constructionist' is used, and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words - and nobody should mistake this - for saying that the [Texas] governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe vs. Wade.'"
"No similar assault on Mr. Gore has resulted from him for espousing the "living Constitution" philosophy of Justice Brennan, whose views strongly upset constitutional conservatives, or for saying his idol among justices is Justice Thurgood Marshall, a civil-rights advocate before his appointment in 1967 and a symbol of that movement until his death.
"Mr. Bush says he opposes "the attempt to label and denigrate certain justices.
"'We've been steadfast in not politicizing the Supreme Court as my opponent and my opponents' supporters have done,' he said."
This Times article seems to have summed up the matter. Inasmuch as it was written in the Year 2000, its legitimacy seems established.
Thanks for the info.
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.