IOW, he won’t appoint judges who will interpert the Constitution correctly.
“I want someone who strictly interprets the Constitution.” Yes, just like banning gay marriages is SO obvious in the Constitution.
“I don’t want a judge that won’t schools to say the Pledge of Allegience because it has ‘under God’ in it.” Dude, it’s the choice of the person whether or not they want to say it. If you don’t want to say it, don’t. If you don’t feel comfortable with your kids saying it, tell them not to say it.
Someone needs to be fired right now. Because there was no, no, no reason for him to bring up Dred Scott. And there really was no reason for him to get it so dead wrong.
Yeah, don’t destroy the “life” of the embryo. I’m sure that embryo has friends and family that it likes to spend time with, and go on walks through the park, don’t destroy that “life.” The handicapped just need to pull themselves up by their boot-straps and stop being so damn disabled. What a drain on society.
Is it just me or is Bush’s answer to the Supreme Court question even more incoherent than his usual?
Memo to Bush: Now is not a good time to remind us how you got appointed by the USSC four years ago.
So a decision on the whole “under God” issue is a “personal decision”?!
So much for the whole separation of Church and State.
With or without the batting helmet?
Ack! Pain! Dred Scott?!?!
Hahahaha. 
It was the standard pat compassionate conservative answer.
You know, I thought I heard him say that, but my brain simply refused to think that even Bush is stupid enough to think that was a good joke to make right now.
You’re an idiot. Dred Scott is the first example of substantive due peocess, exactly what Bush is inveighing against. It’s directly on point.
In about 2 centuries of judicial decisions, the best one he could come up with was Dred Scott?
WTF?
Did he just say that he wants constructionist judges, not like the ones in the Dred Scott decision? Is he aware it took a constitutional amendment to overturn that decision. Is he aware that the judges in that decision are just the type he wants?
I thought I heard Bush state he supports the decision of Dred Scott.
Am I wrong?
Hey she;s a cutie - Sarah Degenhart ??
Dred Scott?
Did Bush just float Dred Freakin’ Scott?
Didn’t Rove tell him this is the 21st century?
Although you gotta give it to him … stepping out on that limb – condemning slavery.
I’d say go fuck yourself!
Yeah, correct me if I’m wrong, but Dredd Scott wasn’t about slavery being okay because of property rights. It was that a slave had no rights under the Constitution to sue, because he or she was considered property. A small, but important difference.