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
Are you having difficulty comprehending my point? Let me make it a little more simple for you.
The President nominates candidates. The senate either votes up or down on the candidate based on hearings. Your ability to choose nominees ends once you vote for President.
Your incessant whining and shrieking about Miers plays right into the democrats hands. You're carrying water for Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi...ect... The standard the republicans set prior to this massive hissy fit was: Let the Senate vote on the nominee and don't hold up nominees based on political ideology. Now the hypocrites have played right into the dems hands by demanding that political ideology is the ONLY factor that matters in rejecting a nominee. Congratulations to ya. Your griping is worth more to the dems than a fat contribution from your checking account.
What a cop out. That's leftist thinking.
You heard exactly what YOU wanted to hear, not what was actually said.
I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Leftist thinking indeed.
To be fair, some court observers and Bush watchers say that although the Bush judges are pro-business and pro-defendant, they are far more "moderate" than their more conservative predecessors. "His judges tend to be moderate-conservative judges," says Anthony Champagne, a professor at the University of Texas at Dallas. "Bush has quite an impressive record when it comes to Texas. His appointees have been a moderating force on the Texas Supreme Court. They are pro-defense, but not extremely so. They tend to often be well regarded by people on both sides." Even Court Watch reported that "a contingent of four justices initially appointed by Gov. George W. Bush appear to be intent on eliminating the excesses of the GOP old guard elected between 1988 and 1994." Still, Texas conservatives understood that Bush's judges would follow the lead of those parked further to the right. During Abbott's 1998 election run, he raised money from business and defense interests under the "reform" banner. One of his fundraising letters reads: "His election to a full six-year term is critical to continue the reform movement that has done so much to return balance, fairness, and impartiality to the Supreme Court."
Who Would Bush Appoint To The Supreme Court, April 10, 2000, by Seth Gitell
Well Jess, let me make it real simple for you.
I have first ammendment rights and I'm going to express them. Since you like to offer up solutions to others, I'll just suggest that if you can't handle it, move to a nation where people do not have a right to express themselves.
The President nominates candidates and I as a citizen am going to make it known what I think of them.
Inceassant whining and shrieking? You are one dilusional soul. Since Miers nomination I have made around five comments on this forum with regard to her. In them I have stated that I think Bush could have and should have done better. That must be pretty drastic language by your standards. LOL Incessant whining and shrieking? If nothing else Jess, you're good for a laugh.
I have stated that the left is trying to attain what they couldn't at the polls, by judicial fiat. I have stated that I want to make sure that our last line of defense against this, the Supreme Court, has rock solid conservative judges to prevent it. If you truly do think that's carrying water for Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer and Pelosi my hats off to you. That is perhaps the most obsurd comment I've heard in months.
Well 'incessant whining and shrieking' mustn't have been good enough for you. Now you're off on a hissy fit of your own. In fact that last post was a doozie of a hissy fit.
Let's see, we have a woman who may or may not be a rock solid well grounded constructionist, and you'd like to give the democrats and a few Republicans the chance to install her. Frankly, I don't want to.
A hipocrite would by a person what had voiced the disire to have a good conservative judge installed into the Supreme Court, and then supported just anyone the President lofted without any objection whatsoever, no matter what. Sorry, I just don't fit the bill. I can think of someone who does.
You just go right ahead supporting a women that very well might be another Souter, and I'll be content to voice objection. There are pleanty of good people out there with a record. My gosh, you mean we could have had one of them? The horrors...
My objection to a possible Souter trumps your support of such a person. Tough luck.
It's not absurd at all. You're doing exactly what conservatives have accused the left of doing. Objecting to a qualified candidate purely on ideological grounds. You can't have it both ways.
Had Bush nominated Alan Dershowitz, would Republicans have no business objecting to the nomination on ideological grounds?
Is there any Bush nominee you wouldn't support?
I predict Bush will publicly confirm that he never said "I will nominate a candidate in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas."
I believe Bush actually said "I will nominate a candidate in the mold of Sidney Appelbaum or Walter Finkelstein."
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.