If You Don't Trust Him to Choose, Why Did You Vote for Him?

Pardon My English ^ | October 14, 2005 | Kerry Jacoby

[Shortstop7]

Close enough = Horse shoes and Hand Grenades.

lol....good point.

[Fenris6]

"I think that goes both ways. I've seen more bashing of those who choose to adopt the "wait and see" attitude here."

[shrug] My experience has been different. Mostly bashing of those for not "trusting Bush"

"I personally find it all rather sickening....."

Agreed. Wish could all agree on that and be more civil re this.

[panaxanax]

Thanks.

[panaxanax]

Thanks.

[JCEccles]

If You Don't Trust Him to Choose, Why Did You Vote for Him?

I took him at his word.

He didn't keep it.

Miers is no Scalia or Thomas.

[Paladin2]

You conveniently forget to explain why Bush didn't name any of the other six. He only named two.

Though I don't have access to Lexis/Nexis, Bush did lead people to believe that Scalia and Thomas were not only at the top of his list of model SCJs, they were the only ones he could relate to or was willing to use as examples of what he wanted.

[Shortstop7]

Heh. Guess it depends which "side" of the postings you've been on.

I still have hope that the President and Rove are pulling off the best Redford/Newman "Sting" of all time.

Oh well, I can dream right?

[Rokke]

Allow me to add you to my list of people who I'd like to see offer even a single reference to when Bush ever promised to appoint someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Good luck.

[Fenris6]

I still have hope that the President and Rove are pulling off the best Redford/Newman "Sting" of all time.

Me two, but I'm leery - Bush has had several misteps lately. Just look at how horribly the Bush Team misread the base on this one?

[Fenris6]

"Allow me to add you to my list of people who I'd like to see offer even a single reference to when Bush ever promised to appoint someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Good luck."

As several have already pointed out - he promised without naming them - unless he was being "Clintonesque" about it. Is that what you're saying? Depends of the definition of ____ ?

[Rokke]

"You conveniently forget to explain why Bush didn't name any of the other six. He only named two."

And you have conveniently forgotten that you were supposed to provide a source for Bush promising to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Bush is responding to Russerts question "Which Supreme Court justice do you really respect?" when he mentions Scalia by name. But when Russert asks him what he looks for when considering a Supreme Court nominee, Bush clearly says, "I'd like to know are we compatible from a philosophical perspective on a wide range of issues. But the most important view I want to know is are you a strict constructionist, Mr. Jurist? Will you strictly interpret the Constitution or will you use your bench as a way to legislate? That's the kind of judges I've named in the state of Texas. On of the--I've got a record on this."

[aumrl]

YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT. (guess u really r a ghost now - or is that bs too?) i.e. HM voted4 more dims than reps.

[Tempest]

The alarmist, cannibals, extremist, subversives, and DUer's all need something to unite over...

[aumrl]

how hi can u count? du u mean originalist or strict constructionalist?

[Tempest]

my new sig.

[Rokke]

"As several have already pointed out - he promised without naming them - unless he was being "Clintonesque" about it. Is that what you're saying? Depends of the definition of ____ ? "

Let me get this straight...I'm asking for an actual quote and you are accusing me of being "Clintonesque"? Let me clarify something for you...being Clintonesque is creating a false quote and attributing it to someone who never said it. Then when you are asked to provide an actual reference for that quote you respond with, "well what he probably meant to say here was..." If you are going to say the President broke a promise, you better damn well be able to provide evidence that he ever made the promise.

[aumrl]

that's y the pres(W) is followin the constitution

[Paladin2]

Whether Bush explicitly said "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" or not, he used Scalia and Thomas (and no one else, not even Renquist) as his examples.

We all know that politicians frequently lie and that all politicians lie at one time or another (as do everyone else, just not in a much of a public setting and on the record). Politicians also like to broadcast a message in coded terms, so they are harder to pin down in the future.

Bush has been a politician for a long time. If he didn't want us to have the impression that Scalia and Thomas were his model SCOTUS appointments, he could have easily named a slew of others. He didn't.

Now he comes along with a nominee who is not quite in the mold (Roberts) and a second one even less so. What are we supposed to think in comparing his actions to his implied intentions? What about the third and fourth appointments?

[dmw]

"He is however President, and therefore has the right to nominate whomsoever he pleases."

And I have the right to disagree.

By the way, I voted for Bush because I trusted him. Today, I don't have the same level of trust for him. But, I still support him because he's our President. I hope he is right about Miers, but if he's not the, impact of his decision will be felt for decades. Sad thing is, we won't know until we see how she decides on cases that are brought before the SC. Another Souter, we need NOT!

[aumrl]

"breaks with his previous pattern " HOW DO YOU KNOW?