[wmfights]

" He told us he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas."
___________________________

I believe in an earlier thread the Bush Royalists thouroughly debunked that urban myth. It is now fact that Bush never promised us judges in the mold of "Scalia and Thomas."

Proof is in the nominee he has given us.

[Cboldt]

I believe in an earlier thread the Bush Royalists thouroughly debunked that urban myth. It is now fact that Bush never promised us judges in the mold of "Scalia and Thomas." Proof is in the nominee he has given us.

There are two irreconcilable camps regarding interpreatation of "the promise."

Did Bush promise to appoint a Justice like Scalia? <- long discussion

I believe the research shows no direct quote attributable to GWB that makes this string ..."I promise to nominate strict constructionst judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." However, Bush has said that he would nominate strict constructionist judges. Bush has advanced Scalia and Thomas as benchmark examples to define "strict constructioninst."

Further, VP Cheney was invloved in the following exchange ...

HANNITY: So in that sense, the President's promise, you believe, has been fulfilled, and that is that she fits the mold of a Scalia and a Thomas?

CHENEY: I do.

240 posted on 10/15/2005 8:46:22 PM EDT by newzjunkey

The distinction between a verbatim quote (that doesn't exist), and a Bush promise to nominate strict constructionists does not mean he didn't "make the promise." As a matter of disambiguating "strict constructionist," Bush asserted that the examples of Scalia and Thomas were appropriate.

So, Bush DID promise a strict constructionist, and the benchmark that I was led to use to disambiguate the two words "strict constructionist" were Scalia and Thomas.

I am saying Bush "made the promise."

Vice President Cheney seems to agree with that construction.

In the alternative, one could argue that he did not make the promise -AT ALL-, or ... (see below regarding timing of delivery of the promise)

The ramifications of that, in the minds of some people, would be twofold. First, they themselves are being called liars, and second, that President Bush is not honoring a promise. Those senses strongly undermine the call to "trust him."

The one area that I see being exploited by opposing sides (and discussion of this has the effect of driving the wedge deeper), is to argue the timing of knowledge of the nominees judicial conservatism. Pro-Miers people taking the side that if she acts as a strict constructionist after being seated, the promise has been met. The dark side says "wait a minute, show us first," and as a result is labeled disloyal, untrusting, etc.

And so, the two sides are right back to the "trust me" argument when it's all done. And in that argument, there is no room for dialog.