George Bush suggested that he would choose a "strict constructionist," a person who would understand the "equality of America." And then he denounced the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which had denied Mr. Scott his freedom. But a strict constructionist judge in 1857 would not have imputed any "equality of America" notion to the U.S. Constitution--because the Constitution did not promise equality for citizens until the Fourteenth Amendment--passed after the Civil War! And, as it stood in 1857, the Constitution held numerous provisions upholding slavery. So a Bush appointee--strictly construing the Constitution--would likely have enslaved Mr. Scott.
Here is Bush's quote:
George W. Bush: Uh, let me give you a couple of examples I guess of the kind of person I wouldn't pick. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God'' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution. Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all - you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
And so I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law. Judges interpret the Constitution. And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year, next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution. Thank you.