Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Bush promise to appoint a justice like [in the mold of] Scalia? Have we been misled?
Media Matters ^ | October 13, 2005 | - J.F.

Posted on 10/15/2005 3:15:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-350 next last
To: colorcountry

Bork was dead on the money, in spades, with that prediction!!!


101 posted on 10/15/2005 4:05:28 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
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.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A308_0_2_0_C/sendpage/index.php

Cliff Kincaid:

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."

Bush said about Scalia: "The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down" for a visit. Bush said of him, "He's witty, he's interesting, he's firm." Asked whether he thought Thomas was "the most qualified man" Bush's father could have appointed to the high court, the former Texas governor replied, "I do." Bush said that when it came to appointments to the court, "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."

102 posted on 10/15/2005 4:05:48 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch

LOL!!!!


103 posted on 10/15/2005 4:06:00 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
"Do either of you recall the exact dates and places you respectively attended Bush rallies?"

1. Labor Day 2000, Naperville Illinois
2. 6 Nov 2000, Green Bay Wisconsin
3. 1 October 2004, Allentown PA
4. 18 October 2004, Marlton New Jersey.

And by the way, I found the text of what he said in Allentown (url below). Here's what he said about judges there " We stand for a culture of life in which every person counts, and every being matters. (Applause.) We stand for marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society. (Applause.) We stand for the appointment of federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. (Applause.) ".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041001-10.html

104 posted on 10/15/2005 4:07:04 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

BS. I heard him say it CLEARLY at the rally I was at. Are you calling me a liar? I sure hope not.

It was said SO OFTEN that there are cartoons depicting a tiny HM standing in a large jello mold shaped like Scalia, for crying out loud.

The WH spin machine is out in force, I see, trying to get Dubya's fat out of the fire here.

This is his "read my lips" moment. Actually, it's 100X worse.

And we're gonna hold him to his Promise. If he continues to try to RAM HM down our throats, there WILL be hell to pay in '06 and '08 - regardless of whether that means HRC in the WH or not.


105 posted on 10/15/2005 4:07:29 PM PDT by jstolzen (All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Is Miers more qualified than Roberts, Scalia or Thomas? The answer is clearly no - not even in the same league.

Asked whether Thomas, who likewise opposes abortion, was "the most qualified man" Bush's father could have appointed to the high court, the Texas governor replied, "I do."

I guess it depends on your definition of the term "qualified" eh?

106 posted on 10/15/2005 4:07:43 PM PDT by AmishDude (If Miers isn't qualified, neither are you and you have no right to complain about any SC decision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
I tend to trust the opinions of such people, and not bootlickers' like yours.

That's cool. It's important to know who is easily led.

107 posted on 10/15/2005 4:07:45 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice groups

So... we search the archives/transcripts/press releases, etc., of speeches Bush gave to those groups.

108 posted on 10/15/2005 4:07:54 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

I am no intellect on constitutional law. Just a common man.

But, the least I expect from this president is someone like Roberts. What a great nomination!


109 posted on 10/15/2005 4:07:58 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Even those the Bush Administration has solicited to defend Miers agree that Bush promised justices in the Scalia/Thomas mold:

"President Bush promised in 2000 and again in 2004 that he would only nominate strict-constructionist, original-intent judges and justices in the Scalia-Thomas mold," Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said in reference to two of the court's most conservative justices.

110 posted on 10/15/2005 4:08:49 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
[While vetting candidates for nomination] then she [Miers] would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'

So, she gets to ask that question, "what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests ..." about the nominee candidates. I wonder if the candidate as disqualified if the answer was -- crickets --.

111 posted on 10/15/2005 4:09:08 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter

I remember the city. Not the date. But I could probably dig it up if I had to.

I'd LOVE to have a recording from that rally, and ram it right down his..

I am disgusted with Dubya. He has turned out to be nothing more than another Politician, making empty promises. (Gee, what a surprise).

Quite simply - he said it. Both my wife and I remember him saying it. It was the biggest "applause line" of the night.

He is simply trying to get his bacon out of the fire, and it ain't workin.

Just wait until a recording turns up. I can't wait.


112 posted on 10/15/2005 4:10:16 PM PDT by jstolzen (All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Jim, I wish it were so but I seem to recall Bush saying this in an event that I attended-- a rally about 5 months before the General in 2004.


113 posted on 10/15/2005 4:10:53 PM PDT by faithincowboys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6

You are right about needing to look ahead. We need to come up with a new, long-term plan.


114 posted on 10/15/2005 4:10:58 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart. Ps. 51:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
"I heard him say it CLEARLY at the rally I was at."

What rally were you at?

115 posted on 10/15/2005 4:11:32 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
. It's really quite amazing to watch some of you throw folks overboard just because they disagreed with this choice.

I never liked Bork. I didn't have to throw him "overboard", He did that all by himself when he came out against the 2nd amendment. He's living proof that an education doesn't make someone an expert.

116 posted on 10/15/2005 4:13:19 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: dc-zoo

I think it's unfair to prejudge this woman before she has a fair hearing. The kind of vitriolic insults she has suffered in the past two weeks is disgraceful IMO.
====

Some of these thin-skinned pundits would have their panties in a wad if they were verbally abused as much as Miers has been.

I half expect her to show up at the hearing with Coulter and Kristol's teeth hanging from her charm bracelet.

In any case, I look forward to the Hearings following the Full Up or Down Vote by the Full Senate. In or Out that's ok. If we must send up another Batter, the Nuclear (Simple Majority) Option should be implemented first.


117 posted on 10/15/2005 4:13:19 PM PDT by Colonial Warrior ("I've entered the snapdragon part of my ....Part of me has snapped...the rest is draggin'.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen


Did Bush say it at "every city" or are you back tracking to just the one you were at?


118 posted on 10/15/2005 4:13:25 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "EVERY" rally, because I clearly wasn't at ALL of them.

But the rally I was at ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY had the "justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas line". It brought down the house.


119 posted on 10/15/2005 4:13:29 PM PDT by jstolzen (All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

People keep talking about the Supremes as though they did all their own stuff in their own little monastic room.

Hogwash.

The only reasonable question is will she be a team player on the side that characterizes Bushes and Reagan more than the side that characterizes Clinton. She is certainly going to get wooed from both ends. I just can't see her putting up with much of Ginsburg or Breyer, however.


120 posted on 10/15/2005 4:13:33 PM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

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.


121 posted on 10/15/2005 4:13:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I heard it during the 2004 rally.


122 posted on 10/15/2005 4:14:11 PM PDT by jstolzen (All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen

You're not nuts. I too am completely convinced he was saying this as far back as 1999.


123 posted on 10/15/2005 4:14:35 PM PDT by newzjunkey (CA: Stop union theft for political agendas with YES on Prop 75! Prolife? YES on Prop 73!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
"I remember the city. Not the date. But I could probably dig it up if I had to."

Give me the city and the year.

124 posted on 10/15/2005 4:14:43 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: bd476
Then again, politicians use every misquote and misinterpretation by the Press if it works to their advantage.

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.

125 posted on 10/15/2005 4:15:01 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
If he continues to try to RAM HM down our throats, there WILL be hell to pay in '06 and '08 - regardless of whether that means HRC in the WH or not.

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.

126 posted on 10/15/2005 4:15:29 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

Pontiac, MI.


127 posted on 10/15/2005 4:16:41 PM PDT by jstolzen (All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I think the phrase will predate the Bush Gore debates. I haven't found a repository of stump speech transcripts or similar.


128 posted on 10/15/2005 4:16:43 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, November 21, 1999):

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Which Supreme Court justice do you really respect?

GOV. BUSH: Well, that's a--Anthony Scalia is one.

129 posted on 10/15/2005 4:16:50 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Roberts was believable. He wasn't a walking conflict of interest.


130 posted on 10/15/2005 4:17:34 PM PDT by thoughtomator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Did hearings reveal the truth about Souter, Kennedy, or O'Connor?
====

Pls...nobody say "Bush's Fault!!"


131 posted on 10/15/2005 4:19:59 PM PDT by Colonial Warrior ("I've entered the snapdragon part of my ....Part of me has snapped...the rest is draggin'.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

Russert went on to ask if Bush would appoint justices like Scalia.....do you have the entire transcript?


132 posted on 10/15/2005 4:20:18 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart. Ps. 51:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
I am no intellect on constitutional law. Just a common man.

But, the least I expect from this president is someone like Roberts. What a great nomination!

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.

133 posted on 10/15/2005 4:20:44 PM PDT by AmishDude (If Miers isn't qualified, neither are you and you have no right to complain about any SC decision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
... because Bush nominated someone like Miers. If thats the case, you are my sworn enemy.

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.

134 posted on 10/15/2005 4:21:33 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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.


135 posted on 10/15/2005 4:21:51 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
Thanks. Here is the url (sorry, maybe someone else can provide the link) to his remarks there.

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.

136 posted on 10/15/2005 4:22:25 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Yes, who is this man? This "compassionate conservative" or "proudly so" conservative: He cut taxes but spends like crazy. Swears "we've got to enforce our border" (Said to Roger Hedgecock on KOGO 600AM in San Diego during the 2000 campaign, the clip has been repeated often including last week on RH's show) and continues de facto open border policies. He can't seem to locate a veto pen... Now we're being told he was using weasel words in a Clinton-esque way to get voters to believe he mean Scalia and Thomas were his models for selecting a SCOTUS justice when he really only mean he liked them or admired them!?! He did say "strict constructionist" in 2004.

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.

137 posted on 10/15/2005 4:22:29 PM PDT by newzjunkey (CA: Stop union theft for political agendas with YES on Prop 75! Prolife? YES on Prop 73!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

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".


138 posted on 10/15/2005 4:22:41 PM PDT by jstolzen (All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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".


139 posted on 10/15/2005 4:23:20 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Excellent. Thank you.

Is there also info on what the PRes. actually said regarding Justices?


140 posted on 10/15/2005 4:23:38 PM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

Thanks for the link, but I don't think we can safely assume that the transcript there is the FULL content of what was said.

Think about it - if Dubya's trying to backpedal (which I'm convinced he is), do you think they'd leave those comments up in the transcript? (Um, no).


141 posted on 10/15/2005 4:25:06 PM PDT by jstolzen (All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
"The WH spin machine is out in force, I see, trying to get Dubya's fat out of the fire here"

As a life long loyal pub I'm getting awfully tired of having my credibility questioned if I dare to speak out about this terrible mistake.
142 posted on 10/15/2005 4:25:24 PM PDT by wmfights (lead, follow, or get out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey


" I have a clear memory of him using those words."
i do too


143 posted on 10/15/2005 4:25:59 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"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."

You won't find it because it's something Bush would not put on the record. It's more likely something you interpreted as being said by Bush that was actually said by a MSM commentator or writer.

But that's okay because when you're king you can hear whatever you want to hear.

144 posted on 10/15/2005 4:27:04 PM PDT by harpu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
i do too

Memory is a funny thing, isn't it?

145 posted on 10/15/2005 4:27:38 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

I don't believe he has ever said his nominee's would be in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.
***
I just posted this in another thread. The way that Gore stated it in the debate makes me think that Bush did say it at some point and Gore was calling him on it.

I also don't trust Media matters as far as I can throw them. George Soros, from what I understand, is behind them. And I have caught them in so many lies, misrepresentations, etc., it's not even funny.


146 posted on 10/15/2005 4:28:12 PM PDT by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jess35

it sure is jess!!!

-----
""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." Associated Press, December 11, 2000"

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/121100/sup_1211007337.shtml

-----
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.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A308_0_2_0_C/sendpage/index.php
----
Cliff Kincaid:

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."

Bush said about Scalia: "The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down" for a visit. Bush said of him, "He's witty, he's interesting, he's firm." Asked whether he thought Thomas was "the most qualified man" Bush's father could have appointed to the high court, the former Texas governor replied, "I do." Bush said that when it came to appointments to the court, "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."


----
President Bush promised in 2000 and again in 2004 that he would only nominate strict-constructionist, original-intent judges and justices in the Scalia-Thomas mold," Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said in reference to two of the court's most conservative justices.


-------


147 posted on 10/15/2005 4:28:45 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
"Thanks for the link, but I don't think we can safely assume that the transcript there is the FULL content of what was said. Think about it - if Dubya's trying to backpedal (which I'm convinced he is), do you think they'd leave those comments up in the transcript? (Um, no)."

So this is what we've been reduced to? Making up conspiracy's that the Whitehouse has gone back and deleted references to Thomas and Scalia? I guess we could believe that....or we could believe that maybe your memory isn't as accurate as you believe it to be. Based on the tone of your posts on this thread, I know which of those choices I tend to believe.

148 posted on 10/15/2005 4:31:30 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Here's two things in include on any long term plan

1) Do not vote for any man with the last name "Bush" in future Republican primaries. You can't trust them.

2) Do not vote for any Republican member of the "Gang of 14" in the Senate. That includes McCain.

That's about half of it, lol.


149 posted on 10/15/2005 4:31:48 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I'm not sure going to find exact what you're looking for Jim. Virtually every time the subject came up, Bush was throwing out the names Scalia and Thomas. It's obvious what he was implying. If Bush and members of the administration try to claim otherwise, it will truly be Clintonesque.

Algore actually stated the Bush has promised to appoint such justice to pro-life groups in the Oct. 3, 2000 debates:

" And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choose."

Bush certainly didn't deny having done that.

150 posted on 10/15/2005 4:32:39 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-350 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson