Replies

I believe we have been misled. I have been asking and searching for any evidence that Bush ever "promised to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas." To date nothing has turned up. Bush has very clearly stated several times what he looks for in a nominee to the bench. I don't believe he has ever said his nominee's would be in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.

I don't believe he has ever said his nominee's would be in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.
***
I just posted this in another thread. The way that Gore stated it in the debate makes me think that Bush did say it at some point and Gore was calling him on it.

I also don't trust Media matters as far as I can throw them. George Soros, from what I understand, is behind them. And I have caught them in so many lies, misrepresentations, etc., it's not even funny.

I don't believe he has ever said his nominee's would be in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.

I agree with you.

But just for argument's sake, let's assume Bush DID "promise" to nominate judges "in the mold of Thomas or Scalia."

And that leads me to my question: How are Harriet Miers's qualifications and known beliefs NOT like Thomas's, before his confirmation?

Bush has very clearly stated several times what he looks for in a nominee to the bench. I don't believe he has ever said his nominee's would be in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.

I wish we had the complete transcripts of the Bush-Kerry debates in Sept & Oct 2004. I am almost positive that I remember Bush advocating as his standard for the SC, justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas in one or more of the debates.

I recall that Bush said that he would appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas during his 2000 debate against al-Gore. I'm not terribly sure of the exact language (or which debate).

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.

Some on this forum have said that a sufficient number of distinguished Senators have indicated that they would end these Senatorial shenanigans and commence confirming judges. These Senators, however, thus far have failed to accomplish this act and probably lack the testicular fortitude (or feminine fortitude) to act on these indications. As they did last time push came to shove, they almost certainly would quiver, falter, and ultimately defect. Despite their numerical superiority, the Republicans have not asserted themselves as a majority in the United States Senate, and the Democrats effectively occupy that role and practically determine the course and fate of the legislation that it considers.

Given the RINO dominance of the Republican minority in the Senate, Bush faced a Senate that would reject a justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Many RINOs would join the majority in that defection if Bush attempted to replace a more "liberal" justice with a less "liberal" judicial nominee. The Senate also demanded that Bush seek advice from them and respect and follow that advice.

Because of the august traditions of the hallowed Senate and the current Democratic majority therein, Bush must acquiesce in all their demands or face the rejection of his nominee--if the Senate even would bother to consider the nomination (a decision controlled primarily by RINO Specter). And yet he must respect his campaign pledge to nominate a jurist with the Clarence Thomas world view. This situation presents an almost irreconcilably tall order, which Bush chose to solve by pursuing effective stealth nominees--qualified candidates who seemingly meet the criteria that the Senate has imposed but who actually meet his own criteria.

Presidents in far less narrow straits have made mistakes with Supreme Court appointments in the past, and George W. Bush almost certainly has or will appoint one or more justices that do not fulfill his expectations. Bush gave us John Roberts, whose judicial philosophy remains narrow; we can hope that he subscribes to the same view as his predecessor, but he might align himself with Stevens or with Thomas.

The Senate mandated a perceptibly liberal-moderate woman for the O'Conner seat, so Bush searched far and wide. Given the political situation, I believe Bush when he says that Harriet Miers was the best that he could find. She obviously is not an ideal choice, but the bench for confirm-able female nominees is exceedingly thin and exclusively liberal. Several potential nominees declined the dubious honor for fear of the Senate. Without any viable sufficiently conservative female nominees with high-level judicial experience, Bush chose a woman whom he knows and respects--a crony with limited accomplishments and no judicial experience.

What are Miers's chances of reaching the court? I put them around 7%. But if the Senate rejects Miers, I do not expect Bush to put up another nominee until the conclusion of the 2006 election season. Even if he does name a substitute--or if he faces an equally or more hostile Senate in 2007--she will be more assuredly liberal than Miers. Why? Because the Senate will not confirm a conservative. And there aren't enough women who have ascended to high judicial office and continued to masquerade as liberals while awaiting appointment to the High Court before revealing their inner conservatism.