{"id":4146,"date":"2005-10-12T01:54:11","date_gmt":"2005-10-12T05:54:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/10\/12\/doubting-promises\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:30","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:30","slug":"doubting-promises","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/10\/12\/doubting-promises\/","title":{"rendered":"doubting promises"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Professor Bainbridge<\/FONT><\/A> is trying very hard to convince us that George <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
W. Bush is breaking a promise<\/EM> to appoint a “strict constructionist”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to the Supreme Court.  Steve’s <\/FONT>post<\/FONT><\/A> comes in response to the argument <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
from <\/FONT>Hugh Hewitt<\/FONT><\/A> (which Powerline<\/EM>‘s <\/FONT><\/FONT>Paul Mirengoff<\/FONT><\/A> found persuasive) <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that:<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"w “When Bush said “like Scalia or Thomas” many <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
people  <\/FONT>heard many things. I think it is very safe to say that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the <\/FONT>vast majority of American voters did not hear “justices <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
committed to a particular theory…of textualism or originalism.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Putting aside the naive faith it takes to <\/FONT>believe in the strict performance <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of any<\/EM> “promise” made in a campaign <\/FONT>on any topic with wiggle <\/FONT>room, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
there are a number of problems with <\/FONT>Steve’s assertions.  He states:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Whether or not Bush broke his promise doesn’t depend<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on what the American people heard<\/EM>; it depends on what <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Bush said.”<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\n
“Bush said <\/EM>he would appoint strict constructionists. That <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is the promise he made and the fire to which his feet should <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
be held.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“In other words, a justice ‘committed to a particular theory’ <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of strict construction would be an originalist or textualist.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"podiumSN\"  In support of his conclusion that promises have been broken, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Prof. <\/FONT>B. tells us:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
1) When asked by Tim Russert in Nov. 1999 what he would <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
want to know about a potential justice before making an <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
appoint to the Supreme Court, Pres. Bush responded: “The <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
most primary<\/EM> issue — the most primary<\/EM> issue is will they <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(emphasis added)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
2) Pres. Bush said a couple times during the second 2004 <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Presidential <\/FONT>Debate<\/FONT><\/A>, “I would pick somebody who would <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
I don’t think<\/FONT> President Bush’s mouthing of the term “strictly interpret” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
can be interpreted as strictly as Prof. Bainbridge insists.  Here are <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
some of my reasons:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny  What people “heard” is<\/EM> clearly important to what was <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
promised, as is what the President meant<\/EM> when he <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“said” the words.  As a former divorce mediator (and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
settler <\/FONT>of many visitation disputes), I can assure you <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that an important promise needs to be clarified, so that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
all <\/FONT>parties know the meaning of the words being used,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and the intentions of the person making the promise.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Steve sounds a bit like a jilted spouse, who has a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
verbatim litany of all the things “that jerk” promised <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
her before he done her wrong.  The jiltee’s friends can <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
only shake their heads and wonder how she could <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
have read so much into so little. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
\"erasingS\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
to the cat:
“that’s complete and
utter nonsense”<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/FONT>Tom Clausen<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT>
\n
           from Homework<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> (2000)<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny Prof. B. also wants us to believe that a President, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
who uses the phrase “the most primary<\/FONT><\/A> <\/EM>issue” three <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
times in explaining what he wants to know about <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a potential justice, is a stickler for precise language <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and <\/EM>commands a broad and deep understanding of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
constitutional law and the meaning of “strict construc-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
tion.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny  This same President, when giving two examples of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
strict construction, mentions having “under God” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in the Pledge of Allegiance, and then — surely <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
well-prepped for the Presidential Debate — gives this <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
explanation of the Dread Scott<\/EM> case:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
” . . which is where judges, years ago, said that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the Constitution allowed slavery because of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
personal property rights. That’s a personal opinion. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
That’s not what the Constitution says. The <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Constitution of the United States says we’re all — <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the equality of America.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"noYabutsSN\"  Steve is, of course, absolutely sure he’s right, and even <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
added an <\/FONT>update pointing to “looking for a strict con<\/A><\/FONT>structionist<\/A>” by <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Ann <\/FONT>Althouse, claiming it shows he has the better argument.  But, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
as Althouse said:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“So, in a sense, Bush didn’t know what he was talking <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
about when he pointed as Scalia as his model for a judge. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
‘Strict constructionist’ is more of a politician’s term. <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Are we really supposed to believe that G.W. Bush understood <\/FONT>Justice Scalia’s distinction between textualism and strict construction, as he <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
explained in his1998 book <\/FONT>A Matter of Interpretation<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>? Scalia said <\/FONT>(at 23<\/A>):<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the whole philosophy into disrepute. I am not a strict <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
constructionist, and no one ought to be<\/EM>— though better <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that, I suppose, than a nontextualist. A text should not <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
be construed strictly, and it should not be construed <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
all that it fairly means.” <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
                                                                                       \"ScaliaDissent\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
In a Comment to the Bainbridge post, Beldar<\/A> points out that Steve <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is really straining: In parsing old transcripts, Prof. B, you’re projecting <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
onto non-lawyer Bush a detailed, dictionary-like knowledge of competing <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
metaphysical terms of legal art like “strict constructionist,” “textualist,” <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and “originalist” — in order to divine his own subjective understanding <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of the words you’ve quoted?<\/EM>   The Professor replies that “If he said he was <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
going to appoint strict constructionists, I think we’re entitled to hold him <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to the ordinary meaning of those words<\/EM>.”  The “ordinary meaning” that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Steve has supplied us with is the <\/FONT>definition<\/FONT><\/A> given<\/FONT> in Law.com’s Legal<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Dictionary — a document that I think we can all agree has never been <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
perused by G. W. Bush.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
all through
his temper tantrum
her calm<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n


after speaking importantly
  she quickly resumes
  sucking her thumb <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
      <\/FONT>Tom Clausen<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT>
\n
           from Homework<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> (2000)<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
A Presidential debate, or a conversation on Meet the Press, is   \"vote<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
aimed <\/FONT>at the general public — not constitutional scholars.  It is plain <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that <\/FONT>the <\/FONT>public (or the actual voting electorate) does not<\/EM> have a consensus <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on <\/FONT>the meaning of “strict constructionist.”   Instead, I believe that the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
public — like President Bush — uses the term (if at all) as a catch-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
phrase or code for <\/FONT>either “the kind of decisions I want the Court to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
make” or “the kinds of <\/FONT>decisions I do not want the Court to make or <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
overrule.”   The President couldn’t actually say that (although he does <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
give examples of results he’d like to see), so he uses a phrase that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
he thinks will win him support.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny Google “<\/FONT>strict constructionist means<\/FONT><\/A>” or <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
define: “strict constructionist”<\/FONT><\/A>>, and it <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
becomes clear that those words have no <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“ordinary meaning” for ordinary Americans,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
nor for policy or political wonks.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Finally, Steve says: “Arguably, Bush didn’t explicitly promise to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
appoint judges in the Scalia\/Thomas mold<\/EM>, although I think that he <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
certainly intended people like me (and Hugh and Paul, for that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
matter) to draw that inference.”  But, look what then -Gov. Bush<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
told Tim Russert, when asked in 1999 if he’d make appointments <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“similar <\/FONT>to Scalia<\/SPAN> in their temperament and judicial outlook”:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Well, I don’t think you’re going to find many <\/FONT><\/FONT>people to <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
be  <\/FONT><\/FONT>actually similar to him. He’s an unusual man. <\/FONT><\/FONT>He’s an <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to <\/FONT><\/FONT>know <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
him here in Austin when he came down. He’s witty, <\/FONT><\/FONT>he’s <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
interesting, he’s firm. There’s a lot of reasons why I like <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Judge Scalia.”<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
That<\/EM> is the George Bush elected by his partisans — a man who <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
truly believes he can schmooze with someone, and get to be <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
friends, and see inside his or her heart, and conclude whether <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that person will make decisions agreeable <\/FONT>to George W. Bush. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
A man who lets the head of his Vice Presidential search committee<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
select himself.  That sounds an awful lot more like a President who <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
would appoint Harriet Miers, than one who would turn to <\/FONT>a Federalist <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Society wonkEsq after coming to share a deep <\/FONT>agreement <\/FONT>over complex <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
constitutional legal theories.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 \"pickup  There <\/FONT>are a number <\/FONT>of ways in which Pres. Bush is quite smart, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
but <\/FONT>he <\/FONT>likes his legal theory <\/FONT>to fit on a bumper sticker.   Steve Bainbridge <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
knows this. There may be <\/FONT>many reasons for Prof. B to fight the Miers’ <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
confirmation, <\/FONT>but they need to be more persuasive than “But, you promised!”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n


she’s waited up …
to have some last words
with me

<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT>
\n

done –
the repairman tells me
any fool can do it<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT>
\n

\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

 <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

home from work …
the little one brings me
an empty wine bottle<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
 <\/FONT>Tom Clausen<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
           from Homework<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> (2000)<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
                                                                                                           \"stop<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Professor Bainbridge is trying very hard to convince us that George W. Bush is breaking a promise to appoint a “strict constructionist” to the Supreme Court.  Steve’s post comes in response to the argument from Hugh Hewitt (which Powerline‘s Paul Mirengoff found persuasive) that: “When Bush said “like Scalia or Thomas” many people  heard many things. I think it is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-14S","jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4146","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4146"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4146\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12980,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4146\/revisions\/12980"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}