Skip to comments.Did Bush promise to appoint a justice like [in the mold of] Scalia? Have we been misled?
Posted on 10/15/2005 3:15:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
And that he has done. I gave him my trust on judiciary appointments when I voted for him both times. I verified that giving him that trust was the right thing to do after watching his appointment of 200 some odd judges.
The least I can do after that is respectfully listen to Harriet Miers in the hearings and then make my decision on her, not that my decision means much mind you.
He has earned that, IMHO.
Posted on October 15th, 2005 at 8:01 pm. About 'A Civil Civil War'.
13:Spending just a couple seconds googling, I at least found this quote during the Oct 3 2000 debate where Gore states that Bush told a prolife group he would appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and Bush did not correct him or say anything in different in any response or afterword. Its something til something else is dug up, and this may be one of those statements he gave to prolife groups which transcripts are no longer available but witnesses repeated it commonly then and he or anyone else have never rebutted it knowing it to be true. Maybe well find more:
GORE: Well, Jim, the FDA took 12 years, and I do support that decision. They determined it was medically safe for the women who use that drug. This is indeed a very important issue. First of all on the issue of partial birth or so-called late-term abortion, I would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the ability to save a womans life or to act if her health is severely at risk. Thats not the main issue. The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overturned. I support a womans right to choose. My opponent does not. It is important because the next president is going to appoint three and maybe even four justices of the Supreme Court. 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 womans right to choose. Here is the difference. He trusts the government to order a woman to do what it 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 womans right to choose ought to be protected and defended.
MODERATOR: Governor, well go to the Supreme Court question in a moment, but make sure I understand your position on RU-486. If youre elected president, you wont support legislation to overturn this?
BUSH: I dont think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.
MODERATOR: That means you wouldnt, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to
BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, its been made unless its proven to be unsafe to women.
GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement 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. I just think that we ought to support the decision.
BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.
MODERATOR: On the Supreme Court question. Should a voter assume youre pro-life.
BUSH: I am pro-life.
MODERATOR: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the supreme court or any other court, federal court, will also be pro-life?
BUSH: The voters should assume I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. Voters will know Ill put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That theyre appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldnt misuse their bench. I dont believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists.
Outstanding point, Congressman Billybob. Thank you.
We still do not know about Roberts. In the final analysis, we took him on faith. So did President Bush, and all the conservative glitterati. Now many of those same glitterati have turned into a howling mob, willing to throw everything away if they can just destroy Harriet Miers.
The mob does not know either Roberts or Miers. But President Bush knows Harriet Miers. Either President Bush is worthy of trust, or he is not. I choose to trust the President.
I trust President Bush to appoint the most conservative person he can get confirmed.
Good point, Jim.
Posted on October 15th, 2005 at 8:23 pm. About 'A Civil Civil War'.
And then (arguably going to the right of Anthony (sic) Scalia who thinks the term is too strict) the famous interaction in 2004 which Professor Bainbridge provides good analysis of at http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/10/hewitt_and_mirg.html
GOV BUSH: The most primary issuethe most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?
MR. RUSSERT: Will your judges and judge appointments to the Supreme Court be similar to Scalia in their temperament and judicial outlook?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I dont think youre going to find many people to be actually similar to him. Hes an unusual man. Hes an intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down. Hes witty, hes interesting, hes firm. Theres a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia. And I like a lot of the other judges as well. I mean, its kind of a harsh question to ask because it now pits mesome of whom are friends of mine. I mean, itsand so, in all due respect, Judge Thomas.
Bush nor any of his cabinet ever disavowed this
Jess, I don't believe that's your take at all. If it actually was, then you'd be advocating U.S. citizens refrain from any comment whatsoever, unless they were running for office. With that attitude you wouldn't even approve of participating on a forum like this.
With that attitude when a Bill Clinton came along you'd remain silent unless you decided to run for office against him. No, I don't think that's your take at all.
I doubt you approve of Bush's elevated spending outside the War on Terrorism. You may not agree with open borders. Do you plan on remaining silent on those issues as well as the Supreme Court nominee?
"I think CONSERVATIVES better quit bickering and do as has been done for years, be sure to vote in primaries. Very few do."
That's the best advice. The nature of a party is shaped through those sets of elections, and with concerted effort, directed one way or another. Somehow, conservatives managed to get Goldwater on the ticket in '64, against the wishes of the party establishment. It *can* be done.
What I find puzzling, however, was that I thought primaries tended to lean conservative, in Republican races. That's one of the reasons why McCain lost for the '00 nomination. The only thing I can think of as to why there's so many lousy GOP reps in D.C. is because of incumbancy. Party members tend to be loyal enough to keep the same congressmen, senators, and so on, on the ticket once they're already there. That's why Arlen Specter got through in the '04 primaries - conservatives knew better, but thought he'd at least be there for them on some of the votes in the Senate. It would have been better to boot him out before the November election last year, and gone with Toomey instead.
"Did Bush mislead us? My take: Bush is trying to appoint such a justice; however, the present political situation precludes him from nominating an known conservative. The Senate has rejected many if not most of Bush's appellate court nominees and would subject his Supreme Court nominees to special ideological certainty to prevent a judge who might agree with Scalia or Thomas from reaching the bench."
I'm not sure about the first assertation. Republicans never had 60 conservative senators and got Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist through. And wasn't Suter supposedly anti-abortion at the time of his hearings, too?
Getting a non-activist Justice through *is* possible. Not likey on the first number of attempts. But eventually, and with enough political capital spent, the base can be satisfied.
As Bush's record has shown, he is incapable of such a confrontation. He could do it, though, if he really wanted too, IMO.
I would trust him more if he hadn't betrayed my trust in other areas. I do not love saying that, but that fits the facts. You know the list.
"He didn't. You are wrong."
If not, he sure as hell got a lot of unearned votes from conservatives across the country.
"He promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas when he promised strict constructionists"
If he promised strict constructionists, how does he know that Miers is one too? She's never been a judge. No record to measure up against.
Roberts had a relevant paper trail. He was not "taken on faith."
"How about this: He's known her personally and worked with her for years? That would be first-hand experience."
A strict constructionist is a type of judge. If she's never been a judge, how does he know what type she will be? There is no way for him to know.
I agree with you Frank. And "I know her heart" just doesn't cut it for me.
I know of no list where Bush has made a campaign promise and then broken it.
Amen! Even FR's own poll on the subject showed that a large majority either want to wait for the hearings or support Ms. Miers outright.
President Bush deserves his fair share of blame for that, but I do think the fiercest condemnations have been directed at petty party functionaries and flacks like Scott McClellan, Ed Gillespie, Mark Mehlman, and the ever-contemptible, NE Rockefeller dimwit-who should never have been appointed WH Chief of Staff-Andy Card.
I'll give Rove the benefit of the doubt-until it's proven that he did support the Miers pick-but don't expect me to refrain from excoriating toadying crap-weasels like Card and Gillespie.
There's more, but I'll leave it with that one.