Posted on 10/15/2005 3:15:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
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).
" I have a clear memory of him using those words."
i do too
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.
Memory is a funny thing, isn't it?
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.
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.
-------
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.
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.
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.
That's because we have self-centered individuals, wanting to throwing temper tantrums, not giving a damn about burning down the whole edifice, as long as they get to 'feel good' for 10 minutes.
That was a 'classic' example. That individual would not care that this country suffered just incalculable damage, under a Hitlery regime, just because Bush picked Miers. You'd think Bush had packed the court with Ginsberg clones for heavens sake!!!
As I said, memory is a funny thing...and often suggestive. I see nothing in what you posted that quotes the President as saying what many believe he said.
Read again:
" Pressed to name a justice who fits that mold, Bush pointed to Scalia and Thomas." Associated Press, December 11, 2000" "
This is the earliest source I can find at it appears to be the authors phrase, not Bush.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:yE6MqBd27WUJ:www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr120799.html+%2B%22in+the+mold+of+Scalia%22+%2B1999+-2005&hl=en
The example was iffy to say the least. BB could have definitely put it in better terms. But he is by no means a racist or a supporter of infenticide. In fact, it is easier to validate these claims against Bennett's opposition.
Then count me in as one of your enemies too.
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? We do NOT have a conservative majority in the Senate.
45 votes, tops, would ever go for a clearly conservative nominee. ANYBODY we get will have to be carefully obscure to have any chance of confirmation. Case in point: Anyone who thinks we really know how Roberts will work out is lost in dreamland. He could be another Souter, and we would not know (yet).
But back to the topic of this thread: We HAVE been misled. By "conservatives" twisting things in ways that must make DU proud.
Apparently, some people will stoop to whatever depths it takes to derail the nomination of Harriet Miers.
Destroy President Bush? OK, if that will get rid of Miers.
Blow apart the Republican Party? Fine, if that will get rid of Miers.
Hand Congress back to the Democrats? Fine. It's worth it if we can JUST GET RID OF HARRIET MIERS!
I don't get it. WHAT'S SO BAD ABOUT MIERS???
She has lots of real world experience, but hasn't been a judge? SO WHAT! You don't have to be a judge first to be a Supreme Court Justice.
She hasn't published a bunch of scholarly articles? SO WHAT! How many people working in the real world would even consider it?
She was skeptical of the Federalist Society back when it was first founded? SO WHAT! The head of TODAY'S Federalist Society raves about her.
She used to be a Dem, and even contributed to Gore back when Gore was pro-life? SO WHAT! I'd much rather have someone who used to be wrong, but has seen the error of their ways. (An extreme example, St. Paul, comes to mind...)
Which brings up the most disgusting thing of all: She's an EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN! Horrors!!! I'll bet she even thinks all men are created equal, endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights...
I can see reasoned discussion about a Supreme Court nominee, and reasonable disagreement. A lot of us care, a LOT, about reversing the outrageous excesses of our judiciary system, and the Supreme Court in particular. This is one of the most important decisions President Bush will ever make.
But the depths to which this has sunk are deplorable!
Personally, I trust President Bush. I trust him with defending our nation. I trust him with the war in Iraq. And I trust him to do his best to pick the most conservative person he can possibly get confirmed.
Let me get this straight...you are trusting something that Al Gore said during a debate?!?!?! Do you remember those debates? Do you remember what took Gore down more than anything else during those debates? It was his false claims and inaccurate statements. The man is a proven liar. But now you are going to use something he said to "prove" Bush really did say he "promised to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia"?
Same debate, same file:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html
GORE: And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice groups 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.
Here's the difference: He trusts the government to order a woman to do what he thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. And I think a woman's right to choose ought to be protected and defended.
LEHRER: Governor, we'll go to the Supreme Court question in a moment. But, to make sure I understand your position on RU-486, if you're elected president will you not throw appointments to the FDA, you won't support legislation to overturn this?
BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. I think the FDA's made its decision.
LEHRER: That means that you wouldn't throw appointments to the FDA and ask them to reappraise it?
BUSH: I think once the decision's made, it's been made, unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.
GORE: Well, Jim, you know, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement the day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now, that sounds to me a little bit different. And I just think that we ought to support the decision.
BUSH: I said I would make sure that -- that women would be safe to use the drug.
LEHRER: All right, on the Supreme Court question, should a voter assume -- you're pro-life. You just stated your position.
BUSH: I am pro-life.
LEHRER: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the Supreme Court or any other federal court will also be pro- life?
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.
LEHRER: What kind of appointments should they expect from you, Vice President Gore?
GORE: Both of us use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome. I don't favor litmus tests, but I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution. And, in my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history.
And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment.
GORE: And 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 governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I mean, just -- it's very clear to me.
And I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade.
LEHRER: Is the vice president right? Is that a code word for overturning Roe v. Wade?
BUSH: Sounds like the vice president is not very right many times tonight. I just told you the criteria in which I'll appoint judges. I've had a record of appointing judges in the state of Texas. That's what a governor gets to do. A governor gets to name Supreme Court judges, and I've given...
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.