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
Much has been made of the fact that Miers is virtually unknown to most of us. I contend that the President knows exactly what her views are on virtually every subject of importance to him. And he chose her because of those views.
I just think this is an interesting quest, but ultimately it doesn't matter. He promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas when he promised strict constructionists, especially when you add that he said Scalia and Thomas were his favorite justices.
And, from all we can tell, that is exactly what W has done.
The article should be read in its entirety, but the following excerpts give a clue to answers to the question posed here.
"Presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore both predict their election would tip the Supreme Court balance of power on divisive social issues.
"The search for that prize may best define their differences.
The vice president has said, "I will appoint justices to that court who understand, and reflect in their decisions, the philosophy that our Constitution is a living and breathing document . . . intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."
"Mr. Bush has stated, "I'll name people who strictly interpret the Constitution and who do not use the bench from which to legislate.
"I've named four highly competent, very good judges . . . bright legal minds and judges who believed they should interpret the law, not make it," the Texas governor said, referring to the justices he appointed to the state Supreme Court.:
[edit]
SHAPING THE COURT "The extent to which the next president can shape the court depends on which justices leave vacancies.
[edit]
The article continues:
"Both have managed to tiptoe through semantic traps about a "litmus test" on Roe vs. Wade or other hot buttons like affirmative action, gun rights and the constitutional protection of homosexuality.
"When the issue of the Supreme Court came up in the presidential debate Oct. 3, the candidates stuck close to their previous statements on the subject.
"'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,'" said Mr. Bush.
"Mr. Gore said: 'In my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history. . . . And I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe vs. Wade.'"
In a Section entitled, "AN ELECTION ISSUE," are these telling paragraphs:
". . . a number of liberal interest groups have mounted advertising and public relations campaigns to target Mr. Bush on the court-appointment issue.
"'Our whole way of life is at stake,'" Barbra Streisand said at a $5 million Hollywood fund-raiser. 'I shudder at how a more conservative court can put at risk all we hold dear.'"
[edit]
"Still, on the issue of abortion, both candidates deny harboring a litmus test for judges.
"Mr. Gore says, 'I am confident that without using a single case as a litmus test that there are ways to understand whether or not a potential nominee has an interpretation of the Constitution that is consistent with mine.'"
"Mr. Bush states, 'There will be no litmus test except for whether or not the judges will strictly interpret the Constitution.'"
[edit]
The section entitled, "IN THE MOLD," seems to contain the summary of how that phrase became used in commentaries by pundits in both the print and other media.
It says:
"Bush opponents, such as the advocacy group People for the American Way, have targeted the Texas governor on the grounds he would select judges 'in the mold' of Justice Scalia. Mr. Bush injected Justice Scalia's name while answering a television interviewer's question about which justice he 'really respects.' But Mr. Bush cautioned that Justice Scalia could not be a model.
"'I don't think you're going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He's an unusual man,'" Mr. Bush told Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said his choices would be "compatible from a philosophical perspective."
"The attack began Jan. 21, a day after the Christian Science Monitor paraphrased the television comments this way: 'George W. Bush has said he would seek out justices in the same mold as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.'"
"That phrase, 'in the same mold,' was quickly picked up by PAW President Ralph Neas in speeches and in the group's "Right Wing Watch."
"'If any of you are considering backing George W. Bush,'" Mr. Neas said on Jan. 21, 'let me urge you to consider the impact of his pledge to appoint three or four new justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Freedom of expression, separation of church and state, civil rights, and gay rights - we'd be turning back the clock 40 or 60 years.'"
"Labor unions, columnists and the Gore campaign followed suit.
"'Gore's opponent has indicated his preference for appointments in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas,'" Gore campaign spokesman Chris Lehane said.
"In the Oct. 3 presidential debate, Mr. Bush stated: 'I don't believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint.'"
"Mr. Gore responded: 'When the phrase `strict constructionist' is used, and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words - and nobody should mistake this - for saying that the [Texas] governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe vs. Wade.'"
"No similar assault on Mr. Gore has resulted from him for espousing the "living Constitution" philosophy of Justice Brennan, whose views strongly upset constitutional conservatives, or for saying his idol among justices is Justice Thurgood Marshall, a civil-rights advocate before his appointment in 1967 and a symbol of that movement until his death.
"Mr. Bush says he opposes "the attempt to label and denigrate certain justices.
"'We've been steadfast in not politicizing the Supreme Court as my opponent and my opponents' supporters have done,' he said."
This Times article seems to have summed up the matter. Inasmuch as it was written in the Year 2000, its legitimacy seems established.
If that source was amusing, you might find this source also questionable but they seem to both say the same thing:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003657.html
Bush's past promises on Supreme Court nominees
Now that our president is openly talking about nominating to the Supreme Court his friend Alberto Gonzales, whom no one but no one considers to be a Scalia-like opponent of the "living Constitution," it's worth remembering what Mr. Bush has said about this subject in the past. This is from an Alan Keyes action alert:
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Gov. George W. Bush repeated a number of times that, if elected and if a Supreme Court slot opened up, he would nominate a judge that held the same judicial philosophy as Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
On "Meet the Press" in 1999, the future President Bush said that the justices he most admired were Scalia and Thomas. Bush referred to Scalia during one of the nationally-televised debates as his favorite Supreme Court judge, and the kind he would nominate during his presidential tenure.
During a campaign speech, candidate Bush was very clear on the type of judge he would nominate if given the chance: "I'm going to name strict constructionists." Speaking with reporters after the speech, Bush defined a strict constructionist as a judge who "doesn't use the opportunity of the Constitution to pass legislation or legislate from the bench."
"That's going to be a big difference between my opponent and me," he said in a debate against Gore. "I don't believe in liberal, activist judges."
Once elected, President Bush didn't get a chance to fulfill his campaign promise during his first term. But in his second nomination acceptance speech at the Republican national convention, he clearly stated, "I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law."
While no one knows what will happen, one thing is clearly established by the above quotes. Whether or not Bush actually nominates Gonzales to the Court, by letting it be known that he feels free to do so, Bush has already made a lie out of his repeated pledge to choose a judge who believes in interpreting the Constitution rather than in re-writing it according to his own preferences.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 06, 2005 04:47 PM | Comment | Send
Thanks for the info.
Nope. If I want to be the one to select nominees for the Supreme Court, I'll run for President. Until then, I'm going to allow the President to do HIS job and wait to see if the Senate will do their job. As a nominee, she deserves to have a shot at confirmation hearings.
We're conservatives. We don't surrender. We fight. We lead. We persuade. We overcome adversity. We twist arms and kick butt when necessary.
And I trust the president. I also trust the lessons learned through experience. Trust, but verify.
Fight on!
Ha. Great post. Thanks for the laugh.
The purpose of the hearings is for us, and the press, and those few Senators who have open minds, to learn more about this nominee. There is no need for the President to learn more about the nominee, as there desparately was in the examples you cite.
Congressman Billybob
Roberts replacing Rehnquist and Miers replacing O'Connor will not change the philosophy and direction of the Court. But replacing Ginsburg or Stevens WILL make a radical change in the direction of the Court.
That's why you are correct. Those battles, yet to come, are the battles to the death.
Congressman Billybob
There is no question that Bush promised to appoint Justices who will enforce the law, rather than rewrite the law. There is no question that Scalia and Thomas are that kind of Justice. That is clear about Thomas now, but was NOT clear publicly when he was appointed.
It is clear that Roberts is that kind of Justice, based not on his statements at the hearing, but on his prior cases. As for Miers, I say wait for the hearings. Nothing useful can be accomplished prior to that time.
John / Billybob
President Bush has been betrayed by alot of so-called conservatives. He must feel alot like Moses right now.
Well, I was just trying to find out if the "in the mold of Scalia" quote attributed to George W. Bush was accurate. Apparently, it's not. Next thing you know they'll be telling us George Washington didn't actually say, "I cannot lie. I did chop down that cherry tree." Politics is soooo ugly.
So according to you, all math majors are smarter than all history majors.
Wow.
I like to research and I've been checking the internet for this quote. I found the following excerpt from around the Oct-Nov 2000 timeframe:
"According to Newsweek, Bush has pledged to nominate candidates "in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the court’s most ardent conservatives" to the Supreme Court."
- http://www.uaw.org/solidarity/00/1100/feature03.html
The Newsweek article in question was written by Anna Quindlen in the November 7 2000 election issue. I haven't been able to find a copy online to confirm this but articles like the one above refer to it. Maybe this is where the actual quote came from??
I also found:
"It seems that Flesicher is trying to lay the groundwork for someone to be nominated who is not as conservative as Scalia or Thomas. But many stories from the campaign period are quite clear about what Bush said. As noted by the Associated Press, "Throughout the year, Bush tried to frame the issue in terms of philosophy, saying his ideal nominees would base their judgments strictly on the words of the Constitution. Pressed to name a justice who fits that mold, Bush pointed to Scalia and Thomas."
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2003/07/15.html
"WASHINGTON (Los Angeles Times) --The two major presidential candidates are giving the voters a sharp, clear choice on the future of the Supreme Court. Texas Gov. George W. Bush says he would choose new justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The court's two most conservative justices, they want to repeal a woman's right to abortion. "
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/02/latimes.scotus/
"We really expect that the president will keep his promise, which he made repeatedly in both campaigns, that he would put forth nominees in the profile of Thomas and Scalia," says Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, a conservative group.
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/polisci/articles/20050710.htm
"During the 2000 campaign, as was his right, Mr. Bush made judicial selection a political issue, saying he intended to appoint as judges people in the mold of Justice Scalia, one of the conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court."
http://www.lawandeverythingelse.com/id62.htm
From this year:
" Ken Mehlman, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, knew just what his Religious Right audience wanted to hear. Standing in a packed ballroom at Washington’s glitzy Ritz-Carlton Hotel Jan. 19, the former chief of President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign told a collection of far-right religious activists that changes are coming – starting at the top with the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Promises made will be promises kept,” Mehlman said. As the Los Angeles Times reported, he went on to call the appointment of judges a president’s “most sacred duty.”
Concluded Mehlman, “We’re going to have more Scalias and Thomases.”
...
During the 2000 campaign, Bush was asked what sort of justices he would appoint to the Supreme Court. He cited Scalia and Thomas. Several of his lower court appointments – Michael McConnell and William Pryor come to mind – have been in this mold.
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7249&abbr=cs_
Always someone saying he said "in the mold of Scalia," but where and when did he actually say it?
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.