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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-350 next last
To: Cboldt
this issue is not going to burn itself out.

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!!!

151 posted on 10/15/2005 4:32:56 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

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.


152 posted on 10/15/2005 4:33:38 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: jess35

Read again:

" Pressed to name a justice who fits that mold, Bush pointed to Scalia and Thomas." Associated Press, December 11, 2000" "


153 posted on 10/15/2005 4:34:49 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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


154 posted on 10/15/2005 4:34:54 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

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.


155 posted on 10/15/2005 4:34:55 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 99 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

Then count me in as one of your enemies too.


156 posted on 10/15/2005 4:35:03 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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.


157 posted on 10/15/2005 4:35:21 PM PDT by EternalHope (Boycott everything French forever. Including their vassal nations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169
"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."

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"?

158 posted on 10/15/2005 4:35:33 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Killborn

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...


159 posted on 10/15/2005 4:36:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
"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"

Amen Brother!

The blame doesn't just rest with GWB and his "get along attitude" but also the unwillingness of the senate PUBS to bring the McVain 7 under control. The SCOTUS nominees has always been a LEADERSHIP issue and the PUBS are not showing themselves capable in this area.
160 posted on 10/15/2005 4:37:40 PM PDT by wmfights (lead, follow, or get out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
if Dubya's trying to backpedal (which I'm convinced he is), do you think they'd leave those comments up in the transcript?

This argument is pure sophistry anyway. "Oh, you can't find where he said exactly that, so you aren't justified in expecting a strict constructionist."

The term "strict constructionsit" is so indefiniate as to be useless. O'Connor and Souter probably assert that they fit that mold. So to disambiguate the term "strict constructionist," it is convenient to name some examples. There is no dispute, Bush said "strict constructionst", "not legislate from the bench" "faithfully interpret the laws under the Constitution," and similar. As a matter of offerin a benchmark for what that meant, he offered Scalia and Thomas.

If somebody wants to argue that he didn't make that promise, then the person advancing the argument is just looking for a word game fight.

Some folks just get stuck on stupid.

161 posted on 10/15/2005 4:40:37 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; All

Thank you very much.

Let this be put on the record for all of FR:

"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."


162 posted on 10/15/2005 4:40:49 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 159 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

You're doing it again.


163 posted on 10/15/2005 4:41:03 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen

You will be a useful idiot to Hitlery, just like the Perot people were for Bill. Matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if George Soros and Hitlery are not even now, making plans for some third party, bought off 'messiah', which someone like you will be be stirred up and driven to, since emotional types are easy to manipulate by the MSM. Yes, they will both be sitting around some table, sipping cognac, LAUGHING at you. "What a sucker, what a dupe, ..."


164 posted on 10/15/2005 4:42:12 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen

I have heard it reported and referred to by pundits.

Cartoonists take great liberties...so I wouldn't hang my hat on them.

As an observer and reader of the posts here...don't think you were called a liar -- hope you don't believe it either -- still just a recollection/belief until someone can document it. Jim has called the FR Dogs out and many of us are looking still.

Oh....crap...just realized this sounds like a CBS report...Guilty...don't need no stinking proof (are the docs dry yet???). [grin!]


165 posted on 10/15/2005 4:42:43 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 105 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

It does explain why Scalia can write and Miers can't.


166 posted on 10/15/2005 4:42:49 PM PDT by born in the Bronx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

All I'm saying is I repeated the oft repeated quote that Bush "promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" and was called on it. I didn't want to be inaccurate, so Googled for it and could not find Bush actually stating those exact words. Gore stated them. Don't know if he was the first or not, but many pundits, writers and posters since have attributed Bush for the quote. It's now a dirct promise. But it appears Bush never stated those exact words. It appears to be urban legend.


167 posted on 10/15/2005 4:43:28 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

http://mediamatters.org/
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=7150
Self-described "progressive" media "monitor" which tracks content that "forwards a conservative agenda."
Creation of Democratic Party funders and operatives
Headed by confessed liar and political turncoat David Brock
Attacks conservatives for holding conservative opinions
Lied about its connections to groups affiliated with leftwing financier George Soros


In its short history, Media Matters has established itself as one of the most vocal and irresponsible combat organs of the Democratic Party. In 2004 the organization boasted that its website had elicited some 150,000 comments in its discussion forums and that over 22,000 subscribers had registered to receive its e-mail alerts. Brock has also become a regular feature on leftwing radio stations like Air America, where he appears every Wednesday. The show, according to Brock, "is a great means for us to be able to disseminate our material…" More specifically, programs like those of Air America provide Brock with a venue to defame conservatives as individuals who "are simply willing to lie," and who "are not necessarily trying to win these arguments on a factual level" - a perfect self-description. Media Matters staffers are also favorites of such supposedly non-partisan radio programs as National Public Radio's On The Media, which invites them to complain, as Media Matters senior advisor Jamison Foser did during a July 2005 appearance, that media coverage of the Bush administration is insufficiently critical.


168 posted on 10/15/2005 4:44:26 PM PDT by TSchmereL ("Rust but terrify.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
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.

You could not be more mistaken. The people who are upset with this nomination are the fathest thing from self centered as can be. The arguments coming from this side represent a principle of open, tranparent government, under the system envisioned by the founders. You "party first" blokes are willing to use stealth to win elections.

The GOP is not advancing the conservative agenda as it said it would. The GOP has the burden of wooing voters. If you want the GOP to succesdd, you better start wooing and stop kicking people in the knees.

169 posted on 10/15/2005 4:44:55 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: EternalHope

That Democrats have been able to use a procedural motion to wield an veto over the government is an abomination that the GOP has allowed to happen. We cannot accept the Democrats' terms, which state that no known conservative can be confirmed even though the Senate is not in their control.


170 posted on 10/15/2005 4:45:02 PM PDT by thoughtomator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL

I know. But where is the direct quote from Bush. That's all I'm asking.


171 posted on 10/15/2005 4:47:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
there WILL be hell to pay in '06 and '08 - regardless of whether that means HRC in the WH or not.

I can't believe you just said that!

172 posted on 10/15/2005 4:47:49 PM PDT by colorcountry (George W. Bush... Saving your ass whether you like it or not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: EternalHope
What you said.

Also, I have read a number of posts here that seem to be taking it for granted that Bush or some spokesman is actively spinning that there was no promise or statement like "in the mold of Scalia of Thomas". I read the entire article and the one it linked to and saw nothing like that. And I've seen nothing like that anywhere else.

This is getting out of hand.

173 posted on 10/15/2005 4:49:33 PM PDT by MrNatural ("...You want the truth!?...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

There are fewer 2000 recordings and transcripts/texts and I didn't find any discussion of SCOTUS appointments in any of the material I've reviewed to date.


174 posted on 10/15/2005 4:49:47 PM PDT by Paladin2 (MSM rioted over Katrina and looted the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: dc-zoo; All
I think it's unfair to prejudge this woman before she has a fair hearing.

That would be the "fair hearing" full of "I can't answer" like Roberts and Ginsburg.

I did find this from July 2000 (BEFORE the Gore debates): "Presidential candidate George W. Bush has publicly stated that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the current Court's most far-right Justices, will be the models for his appointments." It's from the nutjob People for the American Way and not an exact quote. It is, however, suggestive that the Gore debates were not the source of this Scalia-Thomas notion. I'm still looking.

175 posted on 10/15/2005 4:52:07 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 11 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
There are fewer 2000 recordings and transcripts/texts and I didn't find any discussion of SCOTUS appointments in any of the material I've reviewed to date.

It's not worth digging up. This is a stupid word game that distracts from the problem at hand. The people saying "you can't find where he said that" are basically trying to advance the argument that "Bush didn't promise strict constructionists."

An that argument works directly against their "trust him" rationale for supporting Miers.

Stuck on Stupid.

176 posted on 10/15/2005 4:52:47 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: TheHound
Come to think of it, I don't think that has ever happened to the Liberals; when they appoint a Liberal, they get a Liberal.

I think you're right. Leftist Democrats are astoundingly good at getting what they want on the bench: statist, anti-gun, anti-traditional family, pro-choice judges.

Republicans are absolutely terrible at it, and have an awful track record.

What is the difference? Leftist Democrats are very comfortable with the secular humanist ideology of their base, and Republicans are deeply uncomfortable with the ideology of their base - religious conservatives, economic conservatives, combination, etc.

177 posted on 10/15/2005 4:53:18 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | 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 agree with you.

But just for argument's sake, let's assume Bush DID "promise" to nominate judges "in the mold of Thomas or Scalia."

And that leads me to my question: How are Harriet Miers's qualifications and known beliefs NOT like Thomas's, before his confirmation?

178 posted on 10/15/2005 4:53:39 PM PDT by shhrubbery! (The 'right to choose' = The right to choose death --for somebody else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EternalHope

"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?"

The Republicans in the WH must certainly try. That's part of the bargain.

"We do NOT have a conservative majority in the Senate...45 votes, tops, would ever go for a clearly conservative nominee."

That's speculation, but let's grant that. Say that 10 Republicans defect on a conservative nom. The thing is, they do not get to choose the next nominee. Bush does. If they reject the next one, Bush gets to choose again, and so on. The advantage you're supposed to have with a supposedly conservative President is that he can choose only conservative Justices to be confirmed. Doesn't matter how long it takes, or how many are intially turned down. If the pressure is kept up, eventually one would get through.

But such a display of resolve against other politicians is uncharacteristic of Bush. His background has shown him to be a "uniter, not a divider" who works with Democrats, not against them.


179 posted on 10/15/2005 4:54:27 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
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.

I agree. LOL!

180 posted on 10/15/2005 4:55:17 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 149 | View Replies]

To: EternalHope

"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..."

She used to be a Catholic, but converted.

I suppose she'll convert from a Scalia into a Souter if she gets in the Supreme Court, too.


181 posted on 10/15/2005 4:56:27 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry
"there WILL be hell to pay in '06 and '08 - regardless of whether that means HRC in the WH or not.
I can't believe you just said that!"

WHY NOT! The PUBS are treating us, the base, like the RATS treat union members. They ignore us and our concerns until election time, we vote for them, then they ignore us again.
Absolutely nothing has been done to bring the RINO's under control and infact one of them runs the judiciary committee.
182 posted on 10/15/2005 4:57:35 PM PDT by wmfights (lead, follow, or get out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

"Let me get this straight...you are trusting something that Al Gore said during a debate?!?!?!...The man is a proven liar."

So if he said the sky is blue, it therefore is not blue? Just because Gore said it was?


183 posted on 10/15/2005 4:58:38 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

"Yes, they will both be sitting around some table, sipping cognac, LAUGHING at you. "What a sucker, what a dupe, ..."

Actually, I could hear those words coming from the mouths of many liberal Republicans as they describe conservatives who have worked so hard in getting them elected.


184 posted on 10/15/2005 4:59:27 PM PDT by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen

Oh, for pete's sake. Chill out.

Unless you have a really big keyboard on your computer...you are just one person...don't think for a minute there is a mindless clone Army behind you to follow your orders --- I am right...yes?

The last time I checked...the Constitutional procedure has not changed for selection of a SCOTUS...President nominates, Senate advises and consents, etc. What has changed is the OTHER SIDE (commonly referred to by us the *good guys* as the DARK SIDE) have held the A&C hearings hostage.

We all have clamored for a FAIR up or down vote by the Full Senate. Let's have that system work. Feel free to irritate the Heck out of the Senators expressing your choice for their vote.

Threats to join the DARK SIDE just means we work harder -- and you miss our next Picnic. [grin!]

So, come on. Agree to disagree or whatever...we are still a FR Family ya know.

185 posted on 10/15/2005 5:01:38 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 138 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL

If the truth is spoken by a known liar it's still the truth. That said, we should continue to research this before we conclude he didn't actually say it.


186 posted on 10/15/2005 5:02:30 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 168 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The people who are upset with this nomination are the fathest thing from self centered as can be.

Oh really?! So people who say they'll gladly destroy the country (help elect Hitlery) to make their point are somehow what ... Super Patriots? Don't make me laugh.

187 posted on 10/15/2005 5:04:18 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

"You will be a useful idiot to Hitlery, just like the Perot people were for Bill."

Are you suggesting that Bush41 was any better a choice than Bill Clinton or Ross Perot?

None of them were conservative, so it doesn't matter who won between the three.

One good thing about Clinton as President was that it allowed the brief "Republican Revolution." That would NOT have happened if Bush41 won re-election.

Sometimes you have to have a Jimmy Carter before you get a Reagan.


188 posted on 10/15/2005 5:05:08 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: wolf24
Actually, I could hear those words coming from the mouths of many liberal Republicans as they describe conservatives who have worked so hard in getting them elected.

Yes, no doubt, but I'd rather have it come from them than from the evil side.

189 posted on 10/15/2005 5:06:08 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen

FWIW, I was at a few rallies in 2000, including a "town hall meeting," and I thought I remembered the same thing, but thought my memory must be foggy. Thanks for clearing that up.


190 posted on 10/15/2005 5:06:51 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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

Actually it will be his second
First was CFR
191 posted on 10/15/2005 5:07:18 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: shhrubbery!

It will be shown that George W. Bush did say he would appoint judges “in the mold” of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

"How are Harriet Miers's qualifications and known beliefs NOT like Thomas's, before his confirmation?"

Justice Clarence Thomas had already been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1991. In 2000, Justice Clarence Thomas had a clear record as a conservative and a constitutional originalist. In 2000, everyone knew what George W. Bush meant when he said he would appoint originalist judges and used Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as examples.

George W. Bush did not say that he would appoint judges like Clarence Thomas as Clarence Thomas was known back in 1991 when his record was less clear and many Conservatives still had doubts about him.

In 2000, George W. Bush DID NOT PROMISE he would nominate a STEALTH candidate who we would have to TRUST to be like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Bush backed down from a much needed PUBLIC debate on Conservative values. By doing so, he has created a real incentive for judges who aspire to be nominated to higher courts to avoid creating clear conservative records for themselves.

And that is not a good thing.


192 posted on 10/15/2005 5:07:34 PM PDT by TSchmereL ("Rust but terrify.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

>>>Uh, but calculus is usually three semesters!<<<

My 4th course was differential equations.


193 posted on 10/15/2005 5:07:35 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau ("Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." -- James 4:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

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"?

****

Well, let's see, don't kill me, but I didn't vote that year. At the time I wasn't paying much attention to politics. I had lost interest after the Clinton years, and what with the birth of my 4th child, a lot of my time and energy went into that. So no, I didn't watch the debates.

And I'm not the only one thinking along those lines. Several people have posted that very quote on this thread. Care to ask them the same questions?


194 posted on 10/15/2005 5:09:01 PM PDT by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Roberts seemed to have an excellent grasp of the issues and relevant case law citations memorized (perhaps better - internalized), even if he is not truly a strict constructionist. We'll see about Miers, but it sure doesn't look good.
195 posted on 10/15/2005 5:09:16 PM PDT by Paladin2 (MSM rioted over Katrina and looted the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
So people who say they'll gladly destroy the country (help elect Hitlery) to make their point are somehow what ... Super Patriots?

You are a party apologist. You want to help the party? Attract voters.

If you came to my door with the attitude you showed me here, I'd slam the door in your face. Godd day.

196 posted on 10/15/2005 5:09:21 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt; newzjunkey; jstolzen; Ol' Sparky


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.


197 posted on 10/15/2005 5:09:23 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
It was in a 1999 "Meet the Press" interview with Tim Russert that then-Governor Bush identified Scalia by name as the SCOTUS justice he most admired.

Moreover, it was in the first presidential campaign debate in 2000 that, in Bush's presence, it was said quite clearly that he intended to put justices on SCOTUS "who were in the mold" of a Scalia or a Thomas. Bush had every opportunity to deny it, or to modify it, but he let . . . it . . . ride.

That, my friends, is a powerful tacit admission that he fully agreed with the statement.

Bush rode the wave of conservative support to victory in TWO presidential elections because his conservative supporters were absolutely persuaded he would appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court. Bush did not disabuse them of this notion. He darn well knew they expected it. Indeed he fed that expectation with his constant praise for Scalia and Thomas whenever the issue of SCOTUS vacancies came up.

Now Miers' supporters are saying, "But HE DIDN'T USE THOSE WORDS!"

What the Miers supporters are doing is stealing a page from Bill Clinton's word game playbook to argue that the irrefutable is not merely refutable, it never happened.

Do they really think the rest of us are that stupid?

198 posted on 10/15/2005 5:11:04 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: brivette
Waiting for the hearings is, IMHO, pointless. Miers will no doubt adopt the Ginsburg strategy, leaving many unanswered questions on her positions.

I don't expect her to tell us how she would rule on a case before it comes to the Court

Though I do expect to see if she has a true understanding of the Constitution .. cases that have come before the Court and who exactly makes the laws .. ampong other things

199 posted on 10/15/2005 5:11:06 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry

"I can't believe you just said that!"

If I was forced to choose between McCain and Hillary in '08, I'd vote for Hillary. Not because I'm for a progressive presidency, but because of important example you RINOs out there have shown me: it's more important for us conservatives to vote *against* a candidate, and not for one.

eg. it was important to keep Gore out in '00 and Kerry out in '04.

By that logic, it's more important to keep McCain out, even if it means voting for Hillary.

It's your choice, RINOs.


200 posted on 10/15/2005 5:12:58 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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