So why did Bush declare that he was against slavery, when questioned about the Supreme Court?
My guess is that anything else in the civil rights agenda was too controversial.
He couldn't reference Brown v. Board of Education (or denounce Plessy v. Ferguson, which had earlier upheld "separate but equal") because Brown was probably not a strict constructionist decision, and so a Bush appointee (if following the strict constructionist philosophy) probably wouldn't have supported it.
It wouldn't be acceptable to support affirmative action in higher education because he fought that tooth and nail (until he lost this last year in the Supreme Court).
Roe v. Wade--right out.
So he turned to slavery--he agreed that that was bad.
And the only other thing that was safe: affirming "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
That's the state of uncontroversial civil rights today.