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: JCEccles

Boolean algebra would be better suited there.


51 posted on 10/15/2005 3:40:07 PM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dc-zoo

Yeah, I think I found that reference. Bush didn't say it, Kerry did. And Bush didn't correct him on it.


52 posted on 10/15/2005 3:41:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: xzins
In any case, even if he did say Scalia, he knows Miers and we don't, so she might well be both a constructionist and a Scalia wannabe.

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.

53 posted on 10/15/2005 3:41:58 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
And we're also being mislead by certain conservatives who are p*ssed that Bush has not appointed a conservatvie version of Souter.

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.

54 posted on 10/15/2005 3:43:07 PM PDT by TheHound (You would be paranoid too - if everyone was out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Yeah, that was it. Thanks for clearing that up.


55 posted on 10/15/2005 3:43:22 PM PDT by dc-zoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Can you post the exact quote here for verification/edification?


56 posted on 10/15/2005 3:44:14 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 52 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I suggest, as many others have said, to wait for the hearings on Miers to see whether she is in the Scalia-Thomas mold.

And, of course, if she gives that impression in the hearings, she will be a constitutionist on the court, right?

57 posted on 10/15/2005 3:44:28 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
Correct. Whereas MRC is dedicated to exposing media bias, MM covers it up and say "Liberal media? What liberal media?"

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.

58 posted on 10/15/2005 3:45:00 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Cindy Sheehan, Pat Buchanan, John Conyers, and David Duke Are Just Different Sides of the Same Coin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
JR,

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.

prisoner6

59 posted on 10/15/2005 3:45:03 PM PDT by prisoner6 (Right Wing Nuts hold the country together as the loose screws of the left fall out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
there some fairly important people out there who are less than enthused with this selection.

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.

60 posted on 10/15/2005 3:45:15 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

If she is typical of the Dallas establishment, which seems to me to be the case, she will lean in that direction.


61 posted on 10/15/2005 3:46:12 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

SO, MM was the one responsible for the BB non story? Huh. Another vulture feather in their cap of lies.


62 posted on 10/15/2005 3:46:16 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 58 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
At least she will understand that the Constitution is abstract enough to apply to the modern day. This is a concept that is beyond the grasp of, for example, Breyer.

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.

63 posted on 10/15/2005 3:46:26 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 46 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I might add that if Bush didn't say it he should have.

I agree.

64 posted on 10/15/2005 3:47:47 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
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. Now when action happens we find that his picks are quite like that predicted by one of his Texan observers:

" 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.

65 posted on 10/15/2005 3:47:47 PM PDT by Paladin2 (MSM rioted over Katrina and looted the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
And, of course, if she gives that impression in the hearings, she will be a constitutionist on the court, right?

Yes. You are correct (and I have a degree in math, too).

;-)

66 posted on 10/15/2005 3:48:07 PM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I'm no expert on Miers, but there some fairly important people out there who are less than enthused with this selection.

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.

67 posted on 10/15/2005 3:48:51 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

If Miers isn't qualified, neither are you and you have no right to complain about any SC decision.




I love your tagline. I haven't laughed like that in two weeks.

LOL, so if she IS qualified....then so is anyone else reading your tagline? LMAO!!!!


68 posted on 10/15/2005 3:49:28 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (It didn't have to be Mr. President. It just didn't have to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

You should restart the "do you approve of Miers?" poll. I, for instance, voted "need more info" the first time. Now, I wouldn't.


69 posted on 10/15/2005 3:49:45 PM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jess35

"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.


70 posted on 10/15/2005 3:50:43 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen

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.


71 posted on 10/15/2005 3:51:28 PM PDT by Paladin2 (MSM rioted over Katrina and looted the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
I do not believe in a judicial oligarchy. The laws are ours and if our laws are nothing but the playthings of the legal class, we have lost our Democracy.

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.

72 posted on 10/15/2005 3:53:13 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 68 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

"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?


73 posted on 10/15/2005 3:53:53 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jess35

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.


74 posted on 10/15/2005 3:54:36 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Boy...that Dubya is a tricky soul, isn't he???


75 posted on 10/15/2005 3:55:00 PM PDT by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

72 refers to Roe v. Wade, BTW.


76 posted on 10/15/2005 3:55:12 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 72 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

We shall see.


77 posted on 10/15/2005 3:55:35 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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.


78 posted on 10/15/2005 3:55:41 PM PDT by groanup (shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Here's the way I like it framed:

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.

79 posted on 10/15/2005 3:55:46 PM PDT by Paladin2 (MSM rioted over Katrina and looted the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

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.


80 posted on 10/15/2005 3:55:57 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
NPR has a complete recording of a 2004 Bush rally ...

The "in the mold of Thomas and Scalia," if it exists, will be in the 2000 campaign,

81 posted on 10/15/2005 3:56:10 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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.


82 posted on 10/15/2005 3:56:37 PM PDT by bd476
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man; Jim Robinson
Judge Bork writing in “The Tempting of America” in 1990 said:

“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.

83 posted on 10/15/2005 3:56:47 PM PDT by colorcountry (George W. Bush... Saving your ass whether you like it or not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Although I'm pretty certain that Scalia would be the model that Bush would want to duplicate, that conservatives wouldn't know this for certain shows how successful Bush has been at avoiding all conservative media.
84 posted on 10/15/2005 3:56:51 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Killborn

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."


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html


85 posted on 10/15/2005 3:56:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
People who think as you describe it are like those who thought Darwinism proved we can "evolve" society to a central leadership's goals.

Biology? You're kidding, right? People go into bio because they can't hack the math.

86 posted on 10/15/2005 3:56:57 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 73 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

"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.


87 posted on 10/15/2005 3:57:15 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I might add that if Bush didn't say it he should have.

Gene Hackman: "You just shot an unarmed man!"

Clint Eastwood: "He should have armed himself."

88 posted on 10/15/2005 3:57:44 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

Absolutely right. Either a proven originalist or a proven intellect....Miers is neither.


89 posted on 10/15/2005 3:58:57 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Okay, let's say Bush didn't make the promise.

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."

90 posted on 10/15/2005 3:59:08 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"I might add that if Bush didn't say it he should have."

Exactly.

91 posted on 10/15/2005 3:59:47 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Here's what CNN said on Sept. 27, 2000: Governor Bush has repeatedly stated that he would appoint to the Supreme Court jurists in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the two justices who take the most restrictive view of federal power." (bold added) Source
92 posted on 10/15/2005 3:59:55 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 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Uh, but calculus is usually three semesters!

Yep. Then DiffEq and Linear ALgebra for the 4th. BSME

93 posted on 10/15/2005 4:00:48 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Bush is not an admirer of his father's other nominee, David Souter, now one of the Court's leading liberals

I hope that put this part to rest ... but I doubt it

94 posted on 10/15/2005 4:01:55 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
proven intellect

Don't go there. I'm really tired of the supergeniuses around here.

95 posted on 10/15/2005 4:02:53 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 89 | View Replies]

"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
96 posted on 10/15/2005 4:02:59 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch

LOL


97 posted on 10/15/2005 4:03:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Oh, you had one of those DiffEq/LinAlg classes for the Engineering majors. Usually low-order stuff. Plug-n-chug.


98 posted on 10/15/2005 4:04:17 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 93 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
SO, MM was the one responsible for the BB non story? Huh. Another vulture feather in their cap of lies.

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.

99 posted on 10/15/2005 4:04:25 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Cindy Sheehan, Pat Buchanan, John Conyers, and David Duke Are Just Different Sides of the Same Coin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

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.


100 posted on 10/15/2005 4:04:57 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | 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