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
Boolean algebra would be better suited there.
Yeah, I think I found that reference. Bush didn't say it, Kerry did. And Bush didn't correct him on it.
Here's an interesting snippet:
``We'd be talking about somebody's background,'' said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official.
``There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?''' Leo said.
Who on earth would be " a conservative version of Souter." Wouldn't such a person have to appointed as a Liberal by a Democrat and turn out to be a Conservative. 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. It is only the Conservatives that appoint a Conservative and get a Liberal.
Yeah, that was it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Can you post the exact quote here for verification/edification?
And, of course, if she gives that impression in the hearings, she will be a constitutionist on the court, right?
They are also the ones who will take quotes by conservatives like Bill Bennet, Rush, Hannity, etc., use just a small bit of what they actually say, and then try to get the MSM to run a hit piece. This is how the Bill Bennet garbage started.
Conservatives have to realize...
Our country was sliding deeper into the cesspool of socialism from the late '50's on. The "Great Society" was a pivotal point. We became even more socialist. Nixon/Kissenger and the china trip helped it along. (although in retrosect I think that was a >fairly< wise move.
Nixon's removal and the Ford administration began moving power from the execuvtive to the legislative and judical branches of government.
Carter increased our slide into socialism.
THANK GOD FOR RONALD REAGAN!
The Gipper along with conservatives both pubbie and rat threw out the anchor. The slide into socialism wasn't stopped but for once we had ground...a goal...the shining city on the hill...that conservatives of all persuasions could aim for.
The Clinton years almost undid that.
Then came W. Not exactly a consrevative but he grabbed onto the line RR tossed out. He slowed the pace. He's not exactly the in your face kinda consrvative I would like to see, but overall he's done a good job in slowing socialism.
I disagree with W on many points...immigration, NAFTA/CAFTA, eonaomy, ... and tons of other stuff.
But overall - especially considering 9-11, NOLA and TONS of other stuff - he's doing a decent job in keeping us from the evils of socialism.
AS conservatives we have to work from the bottom up. I believe that's the constitutional way.
W is no conservative...he's helped slow things but is no RR.
WE have to look ahead...WAY AHEAD...way past when I'm gone...the late teens early '20's. That's what conservatives should be aiming for.
Sadly I think most don't quite get it.
BTW, Thanks for the soapbox.
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?
You can follow the "important" people if you like. They're just one opinion out of a multitude.
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.
" 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.
The "in the mold of Thomas and Scalia," if it exists, will be in the 2000 campaign,
Jim thanks for researching this, discussing it and posting it. Hope we find out if he actually said it.
If Bush didn't say it, he or his staff should have corrected Barnes, instead of using it to their advantage by leaving it to everyone's imagination.
Then again, politicians use every misquote and misinterpretation by the Press if it works to their advantage.
In the short run, the pool of potential nominees is likely to shrink and change in composition. A president who wants to avoid a battle like mine, and most presidents would prefer to, is likely to nominate men and women who have not written much, and certainly nothing that could be regarded as controversial by left-leaning senators and groups. The tendency, therefore will be to nominate and confirm persons whose performance once on the bench cannot be accurately or perhaps even roughly, predicted either by the President or by the Senate.
We see that his prediction has come to pass. Only the President knows who and what Harriet Miers is. The politicizing of the court has brought us to this position where we can only trust the man we elected.
Found an earlier one. This one from the Bush/Gore debates. Gore made the allegation and Bush did not deny or correct it:
"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."
Biology? You're kidding, right? People go into bio because they can't hack the math.
"Bush is a politican and a skilled one not be misunderestimated. He has been quite ambiguous on SCOTUS appointments for years as it turns out."
And that was supposed to be a good thing. Slip it under the radar, if you will.
As we see now, if you don't hold politicians to some sort of standard, they don't have incentive to follow through. For judicial nominations, it's incredibly important, from now on out, to ask your representative to take a hard, known stand, before you pledge your vote.
No more of this "incremental" garbage.
Gene Hackman: "You just shot an unarmed man!"
Clint Eastwood: "He should have armed himself."
Absolutely right. Either a proven originalist or a proven intellect....Miers is neither.
Yep. That is the alternative. I suppose he didn't promise strict constuctionsists either, since that's what conservatives are looking for and Scalia and THomas happen to be benchmarks to disambiguate "strict constructionist."
Yep. Then DiffEq and Linear ALgebra for the 4th. BSME
I hope that put this part to rest ... but I doubt it
Don't go there. I'm really tired of the supergeniuses around here.
Oh, you had one of those DiffEq/LinAlg classes for the Engineering majors. Usually low-order stuff. Plug-n-chug.
Rush discussed this in depth after the Bill Bennett crap started. Anyone who is a member of Rush 24/7 can follow the link and read about it.
A solution would be for Congress to limit the scope of what the SCOTUS can deliberate on.
As most of this Republic's history has shown, there is the tendency to push controversial problems into the courts, and away from the political arena.
GWB choosing to avoid things like same sex marriage, abortion, affirmative action, emminent domain and so on, is continuing to avoid these issues by opting for "non-politically polarizing" figures for the SCOTUS.
He sure has egg on his face this time. There *are* issues of the day which need to be hammered out, and can't be pushed away forever. The political process is here to deal with them. Abdicating your duty will only result in very poor poll ratings and intra-party conflict.