pageok
pageok
pageok
President Bush on Appointing Judges:
Here is a statement by President Bush on what kind of judges he would nominate to the Supreme Court:
What I would do is appoint people to the federal bench that will not legislate from the bench, who will interpret the Constitution.
  Can anyone remember the month and year in which President Bush made this exact statement?

  For the answer, click
David Maquera (mail) (www):
Just goes to show that talk is cheap for the Republicrat Bushes and their cronies.
10.18.2005 3:25pm
Ghost_of_Solon (mail):
And here I thought that W's strategic playbook mandated that W ask himself "What would Poppy have done?" and then do the exact opposite. As we keep seeing, the apple is super glued to the tree.
10.18.2005 3:36pm
Moral Hazard (mail):
Bush 41 was 1 for 2, which would be a pretty good average in baseball.
10.18.2005 8:19pm
Chris Grant (mail):
And conservative icon Ronald Reagan appointed Scalia but also O'Connor and Kennedy. When it comes to nominations to the Supreme Court, is there any president that conservatives don't detest?
10.18.2005 8:35pm
Crank (mail) (www):
I don't blame Reagan. Scalia was a great choice, Kennedy was Reagan's third choice, and O'Connor was a campaign promise. I do blame Bush for Souter - where Kennedy and O'Connor were moderate conservatives who drifted a bit to the left, Souter on the Court has never been anything but a liberal. If we'd had another O'Connor instead of Souter, we'd be better off.

But Kennedy, Souter and Thomas had to survive a Democrat-controlled Senate. George W. has no similar excuse with Miers.
10.19.2005 12:38pm