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
This argument is pure sophistry anyway. "Oh, you can't find where he said exactly that, so you aren't justified in expecting a strict constructionist."
The term "strict constructionsit" is so indefiniate as to be useless. O'Connor and Souter probably assert that they fit that mold. So to disambiguate the term "strict constructionist," it is convenient to name some examples. There is no dispute, Bush said "strict constructionst", "not legislate from the bench" "faithfully interpret the laws under the Constitution," and similar. As a matter of offerin a benchmark for what that meant, he offered Scalia and Thomas.
If somebody wants to argue that he didn't make that promise, then the person advancing the argument is just looking for a word game fight.
Some folks just get stuck on stupid.
Thank you very much.
Let this be put on the record for all of FR:
"BUSH: Voters should assume that I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. The voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy.
And that's going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that -- I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in -- I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint.
I've named four Supreme Court judges in the state of Texas, and I would ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They're good, solid men and women who have made good sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas."
You're doing it again.
You will be a useful idiot to Hitlery, just like the Perot people were for Bill. Matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if George Soros and Hitlery are not even now, making plans for some third party, bought off 'messiah', which someone like you will be be stirred up and driven to, since emotional types are easy to manipulate by the MSM. Yes, they will both be sitting around some table, sipping cognac, LAUGHING at you. "What a sucker, what a dupe, ..."
I have heard it reported and referred to by pundits.
Cartoonists take great liberties...so I wouldn't hang my hat on them.
As an observer and reader of the posts here...don't think you were called a liar -- hope you don't believe it either -- still just a recollection/belief until someone can document it. Jim has called the FR Dogs out and many of us are looking still.
Oh....crap...just realized this sounds like a CBS report...Guilty...don't need no stinking proof (are the docs dry yet???). [grin!]
It does explain why Scalia can write and Miers can't.
All I'm saying is I repeated the oft repeated quote that Bush "promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" and was called on it. I didn't want to be inaccurate, so Googled for it and could not find Bush actually stating those exact words. Gore stated them. Don't know if he was the first or not, but many pundits, writers and posters since have attributed Bush for the quote. It's now a dirct promise. But it appears Bush never stated those exact words. It appears to be urban legend.
http://mediamatters.org/
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=7150
Self-described "progressive" media "monitor" which tracks content that "forwards a conservative agenda."
Creation of Democratic Party funders and operatives
Headed by confessed liar and political turncoat David Brock
Attacks conservatives for holding conservative opinions
Lied about its connections to groups affiliated with leftwing financier George Soros
In its short history, Media Matters has established itself as one of the most vocal and irresponsible combat organs of the Democratic Party. In 2004 the organization boasted that its website had elicited some 150,000 comments in its discussion forums and that over 22,000 subscribers had registered to receive its e-mail alerts. Brock has also become a regular feature on leftwing radio stations like Air America, where he appears every Wednesday. The show, according to Brock, "is a great means for us to be able to disseminate our material…" More specifically, programs like those of Air America provide Brock with a venue to defame conservatives as individuals who "are simply willing to lie," and who "are not necessarily trying to win these arguments on a factual level" - a perfect self-description. Media Matters staffers are also favorites of such supposedly non-partisan radio programs as National Public Radio's On The Media, which invites them to complain, as Media Matters senior advisor Jamison Foser did during a July 2005 appearance, that media coverage of the Bush administration is insufficiently critical.
You could not be more mistaken. The people who are upset with this nomination are the fathest thing from self centered as can be. The arguments coming from this side represent a principle of open, tranparent government, under the system envisioned by the founders. You "party first" blokes are willing to use stealth to win elections.
The GOP is not advancing the conservative agenda as it said it would. The GOP has the burden of wooing voters. If you want the GOP to succesdd, you better start wooing and stop kicking people in the knees.
That Democrats have been able to use a procedural motion to wield an veto over the government is an abomination that the GOP has allowed to happen. We cannot accept the Democrats' terms, which state that no known conservative can be confirmed even though the Senate is not in their control.
I know. But where is the direct quote from Bush. That's all I'm asking.
I can't believe you just said that!
Also, I have read a number of posts here that seem to be taking it for granted that Bush or some spokesman is actively spinning that there was no promise or statement like "in the mold of Scalia of Thomas". I read the entire article and the one it linked to and saw nothing like that. And I've seen nothing like that anywhere else.
This is getting out of hand.
There are fewer 2000 recordings and transcripts/texts and I didn't find any discussion of SCOTUS appointments in any of the material I've reviewed to date.
That would be the "fair hearing" full of "I can't answer" like Roberts and Ginsburg.
I did find this from July 2000 (BEFORE the Gore debates): "Presidential candidate George W. Bush has publicly stated that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the current Court's most far-right Justices, will be the models for his appointments." It's from the nutjob People for the American Way and not an exact quote. It is, however, suggestive that the Gore debates were not the source of this Scalia-Thomas notion. I'm still looking.
It's not worth digging up. This is a stupid word game that distracts from the problem at hand. The people saying "you can't find where he said that" are basically trying to advance the argument that "Bush didn't promise strict constructionists."
An that argument works directly against their "trust him" rationale for supporting Miers.
Stuck on Stupid.
I think you're right. Leftist Democrats are astoundingly good at getting what they want on the bench: statist, anti-gun, anti-traditional family, pro-choice judges.
Republicans are absolutely terrible at it, and have an awful track record.
What is the difference? Leftist Democrats are very comfortable with the secular humanist ideology of their base, and Republicans are deeply uncomfortable with the ideology of their base - religious conservatives, economic conservatives, combination, etc.
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?
"First: Does anyone really think a Justice with a long and clearly published track record proving that person would be like Justices Scalia or Thomas would have even the slightest chance of getting confirmed?"
The Republicans in the WH must certainly try. That's part of the bargain.
"We do NOT have a conservative majority in the Senate...45 votes, tops, would ever go for a clearly conservative nominee."
That's speculation, but let's grant that. Say that 10 Republicans defect on a conservative nom. The thing is, they do not get to choose the next nominee. Bush does. If they reject the next one, Bush gets to choose again, and so on. The advantage you're supposed to have with a supposedly conservative President is that he can choose only conservative Justices to be confirmed. Doesn't matter how long it takes, or how many are intially turned down. If the pressure is kept up, eventually one would get through.
But such a display of resolve against other politicians is uncharacteristic of Bush. His background has shown him to be a "uniter, not a divider" who works with Democrats, not against them.
I agree. LOL!
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.