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
If she is typical of the Dallas establishment, which seems to me to be the case, she will lean in that direction.
SO, MM was the one responsible for the BB non story? Huh. Another vulture feather in their cap of lies.
Undoubtedly, you see mathematics as just another branch of engineering. Just another list of facts and techniques to be known. The mathematician (even an undergrad) does not simply learn a bunch of facts to be applied to a specific situation. She understands all things. That's right, all things. She is not tied down by terminology and past perceptions. All that we know that involves any high-level thought is nothing but mathematics. Her mind has been trained to think of things more deeply, more generally, and to relate seemingly unrelatable things.
I agree.
" Bush's record of appointing judges in Texas suggests he will appoint more cautious judges than constitutionalist ones, more O'Connors than Scalias. One analyst made an observation repeated elsewhere by others: "Bush;s judicial picks are not extreme... [They] don't carry an ideological flag with them to the bench." One paper quoted a University of Texas professor saying that Bush's approach "is not so focused on ideology [as] it is on reputation and ability." Tom Pauken, former chairman of the Texas Republican Party, calls Bush's appointments "a mixed bag" and says, "I would not have confidence that we might not see another David Souter on the Supreme Court in a Bush presidency." (from: http://dutyisours.com/human_events.htm)"
Gonzalez is likely coming next.
Yes. You are correct (and I have a degree in math, too).
;-)
And almost all of them know next to nothing about this person. Whereas, the people who have worked with her, and do know her, feel very comfortable and are not squirming. People like Jay Sekulow, I man I trust very much, in matters related to both the law, the Constitution, and conservative issues.
If Miers isn't qualified, neither are you and you have no right to complain about any SC decision.
You should restart the "do you approve of Miers?" poll. I, for instance, voted "need more info" the first time. Now, I wouldn't.
"Important people? Would that be like....elite people, special people? The same people who tell us that unless we're lawyers, we're too uneducated to read and understand the Constitution?"
Hey RINO, he's talking about people who have spent their careers trying to advance the nomination of conservative Justices.
I tend to trust the opinions of such people, and not bootlickers' like yours.
NPR has a complete recording of a 2004 Bush rally in Holland MI. 37 minutes. No mention whatsoever of SCOTUS. Clearly "in the mold..." didn't happen at every rally.
Look at it this way, 7 of 9 of the smartest and most qualified lawyers (I won't address that oxymoron) decided it was in the Constitution. You have no right to argue.
"is not tied down by terminology and past perceptions. All that we know that involves any high-level thought is nothing but mathematics. Her mind has been trained to think of things more deeply, more generally, and to relate seemingly unrelatable things."
That doesn't make me any more confident she won't be a progressive activist judge on the Supreme Court.
People who think as you describe it are like those who thought Darwinism proved we can "evolve" society to a central leadership's goals. Perhaps she'd of been better suited for Stalin or Mao's regimes?
Yes, I know. Robert Bork was pretty well respected until he came out against Miers. It's really quite amazing to watch some of you throw folks overboard just because they disagreed with this choice.
Boy...that Dubya is a tricky soul, isn't he???
72 refers to Roe v. Wade, BTW.
We shall see.
For most of the conservatives that I know, Bush was re-elected for two reasons. The WOT and the SCOTUS. Anything short of two Scalias or two Thomases is a huge disappointment. OTOH no one knows what we have in these two.
Is Miers more qualified than Roberts, Scalia or Thomas? The answer is clearly no - not even in the same league.
If she is at least a consistant "vote" then Bush should be nominating someone younger.
He/she is just praying.
Nobody has a clue how Miers' will perform as a judge. All we know so far is that she a liberal Dem through most her adult life. The other thing we know is that she has no background in constituional law. More guarantee that she will make it up as she goes, and not strictly interpret.
Can only hope that she will be defeated.
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.