Posted on 10/15/2005 3:15:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Did Bush promise to appoint a justice like Scalia? CNN's Bash busted an "urban myth" with a myth of her own, while Fred Barnes changed his story -- then changed it back again
For six years, political figures and interest groups on the left, right, and center, along with reporters and commentators, have noted that during his first presidential campaign, George W. Bush promised to use Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as the model for his nominations to the court. Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes was apparently the first to report this, in a July 1999 article for that magazine. For six years, Barnes and countless others repeated this fact, and neither Bush nor any of his aides seem to have ever challenged it -- in fact, Bush did not contest Al Gore's statement in a 2000 presidential debate that Bush had made such a promise. But in recent months -- when two vacancies gave Bush the opportunity to actually make nominations to the Supreme Court -- an apparent effort to walk back the promise has been under way, with Barnes himself playing a key role through a series of inconsistent statements about his own article.
Most recently, CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash narrated a segment on the October 12 edition of The Situation Room that purported to debunk the "urban myth" that, while campaigning for president, George Bush said that his Supreme Court nominees would be in the mold of Scalia. Bash claimed that the "myth" of Bush's Scalia comments was based on a November 1999 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press in which, as Bash noted, Bush praised Scalia but didn't promise to appoint a justice like him. Bash then said that during a 2000 debate, Gore, Bush's opponent, "connected the dots" -- falsely suggesting that Gore was the first to interpret Bush's Meet the Press comments as a promise to appoint a justice like Scalia. Finally, Bash provided a clue about the source of recent efforts to walk back Bush's promise by stating that "[a] longtime time Bush aide confirms to CNN Mr. Bush didn't actually publicly pledge a Scalia or a [Clarence] Thomas, but they made no effort to clarify."
Contrary to Bash's claim, Bush's Meet the Press appearance was not the original basis for the assertion that Bush promised to appoint a justice in the mold of Scalia. Under the headline "Bush Scalia," Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes wrote in his magazine's July 5-12, 1999, issue:
WHO IS GEORGE W. BUSH'S IDEAL JUDGE, the model for nominees he'd pick for the Supreme Court? Antonin Scalia, that's who. In public comments, of course, Bush has declared his desire, if elected president, to choose judges who interpret the Constitution strictly, and Scalia qualifies on that count. Appointed by President Reagan in 1986, Scalia is one of the most conservative justices on the high court, and is part of the minority that favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. But when asked about the kind of judge he would really want, Bush was quite specific. "I have great respect for Justice Scalia," Bush said, "for the strength of his mind, the consistency of his convictions, and the judicial philosophy he defends."
Bush singled out Scalia in response to a written question I submitted to his presidential campaign. Some Bush aides thought he might cite Clarence Thomas, nominated by Bush's father, President Bush, in 1991, as the model for his judicial appointments. Every bit as conservative as Scalia, Thomas would likewise reverse Roe v. Wade. But Thomas is more controversial as a result of sexual harassment charges made against him by Anita Hill. Bush is not an admirer of his father's other nominee, David Souter, now one of the Court's leading liberals.
Barnes stood by his reporting for six years. Media Matters for America can find no example of either Barnes or any Bush aide correcting the July 1999 article through mid-2005. In fact, Barnes has repeatedly reiterated the point that Bush said he'd name a justice like Scalia -- and has done so as recently as this year...
Excerpted, read the rest here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200510130005
Yes, I know. I believe he's stated many times that he'd appoint constructionists to the bench and that he admired Scalia and Thomas. The question was on a direct quote from Bush. It's been repeated many times that Bush actually said he'd "...appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas." But I have not been successful in finding where he actually stated those exact words... "in the mold of Scalia" etc. If someone knows where he said these words, I'd sure like to see it.
I heard it during the 2004 rally.
You're not nuts. I too am completely convinced he was saying this as far back as 1999.
Give me the city and the year.
Yeah, well, if that was GWB's intention with this matter, to let a false inflated impression of SCOTUS nominees persist, he sure has misunderstimated the political "benefit" of that. He's got a divided party on his hands. Not the sort of thing that a leader should strive for. And I have the impression he has no intention of repairing the split.
Oh really? Think about what a nonsensical little 'temper rant' that is. You're willing to help destroy this country, doing incalculable harm, because Bush nominated someone like Miers. If thats the case, you are my sworn enemy.
Pontiac, MI.
I think the phrase will predate the Bush Gore debates. I haven't found a repository of stump speech transcripts or similar.
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Which Supreme Court justice do you really respect?
GOV. BUSH: Well, that's a--Anthony Scalia is one.
Roberts was believable. He wasn't a walking conflict of interest.
Did hearings reveal the truth about Souter, Kennedy, or O'Connor?
====
Pls...nobody say "Bush's Fault!!"
Russert went on to ask if Bush would appoint justices like Scalia.....do you have the entire transcript?
A lot of the people who oppose Miers opposed -- and still are highly skeptical of -- Roberts. They're just too smart to remind you of that.
The Constitution: It ain't long. It ain't complicated. It ain't hard to understand.
The ramifications of a party split are somewhat serious. The party leadaers better get their act together, because, as you might gauge from the contents of FR lately, this issue is not going to burn itself out.
Whether Bush used the exact wording, that he would nominate jurists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, the inference of all his remarks on the subject matter were crystal clear. They remain so today. It's the current set of circumstances and the political environment that has changed.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041027-15.html
I'm not going to call you a liar, but your memory doesn't seem quite right. Here is what he said about judges...
"The fifth clear choice in this election is on the values that are so crucial to keeping America's families strong. I stand for the appointment of federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. (Applause.) I stand for marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society. (Applause.)"
No mention of Thomas or Scalia.
I'm on the hunt for hard evidence that he (or even the campaign) did say he would appoint justices like Scalia or Thomas on the stump or in a primary debate. I have a clear memory of him using those words.
This is ALL about starting to hold these guys to their promises.
If they choose not to do that, and USE US for nothing other than a few more votes, we have EVERY right to withhold our support.
The Republican Party had better figure out who put it in power in 2004. It was, by and large, the Conservative Block.
They can spit in our face on SCOTUS (which I believe they are doing with HM), and we can fairly respond by not being there for them next time.
And before you think that the amount of people TRULY tweaked off about this is some small fragment, I suggest you go do some of the research I have over the past two weeks.
Some very smart people (including a former Senator from some Western State - Colorado?) firmly predice and fully EXPECT that the base is SO TWEAKED OFF about Miers that control of Congress will EASILY go to the Dems in '06. And if that happens, then so be it.
I've worked, sweated and fought for 25+ years to put (R) candidates into the WH & Congress - for THIS *ONE* reason alone. (Like many others, I'm tired of Judges who make up law where it doesn't exist - particularly when it has the effect of further sending the country to hell in a handbasket). It is time that we fix that. From ALL available evidence, Miers will not accomplish this goal.
We've been used. It is high time for us to send a message the next time around - REGARDLESS of the consequences to (R).
Maybe next time, they'll "get it".
An early use of the phrase without attribution to bush is found here
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:yE6MqBd27WUJ:www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr120799.html+%2B%22in+the+mold+of+Scalia%22+%2B1999&hl=en
An article from PAW in 2000 that quotes Bush as constructionist but omits quote on "in the mold".
Excellent. Thank you.
Is there also info on what the PRes. actually said regarding Justices?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.