If he says he is going to nominate "strict constructionsists," then doesn't nominate "stict constructionists," then in -SOMEBODY's- mind, he has broken a promise. Othere will see it differently, no doubt.
Two additional points. First, it is possible for strict constructionists to disagree. Second, Gonzales is, apparently not a strict constructionist and Bush didn't name him for the courts.
Bush named him to the Texas Supreme Court, where he rendered the opinion I directed you to.
As for "strict constructionsists" being able to agree on the meaning of that term, that is exactly the point I was making. George Bush may think it's one thing, while I think it's another. More research is required, and I provided some.
It is not possible to research Miers in a similar fashion. That bugs me on many levels.
Also, what I argue is that strict constructionists can disagree on a given court case. Disagreement does not disqualify one or the other from receiving the label. Finally, if Alberto Gonzales proved himself not to be a strict constructionist on the TXSC, then that would disqualify him based on Bush's promise.
I don't know that this is true, that his record in Texas has been combed over and the evidence is less-than-convincing in either direction.