Posted on 03/01/2007 1:46:04 PM PST by madprof98
Rudy may be talking the “strict constructionists” talk, but it seems he didn’t walk the walk while mayor of NYC.
From Politico:
A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.
A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.
Cumulatively, Giuilani’s record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state’s leading abortion-rights group. “They were decent, moderate people,” she said.
“I don’t think he was looking for someone who was particularly conservative,” added Barry Kamins, a Democrat who chaired the panel of the Bar Association of the City of New York, which reviewed Giuliani’s appointments. “He picked a variety from both sides of the spectrum. They were qualified, even-tempered, academically strong.”
This obviously makes me feel better (especially the part about picking judges from both sides), but I can imagine it’ll give a lot of conservatives heartburn. It’ll be interesting to see how he addresses this. I mean, just because somebody is from one side or the other doesn’t mean they won’t live up to Giuliani’s “test.”
Or, does Giuliani really have a test?
Though at least 50 of his 75 appointees were registered Democrats (only six were registered Republicans), Giuliani also won praise for, some say, appointing fewer judges with ties to local Democratic politics than his predecessors.Still, this is something that’ll be hard to shake…8 to 1?“It was not people coming out of the clubhouses, which is what I’d seen earlier,” said Charles Moerdler, a member of the Commission on Judicial Nominations who had served other mayors in the same capacity. “I did not support Rudy (the first time he ran) because he was too conservative for me, so I was very alert to that, but I didn’t see any litmus tests on his part,” he said.
Good luck with that one Rudy.
You just don't understand.
He is a CONSERVATIVE!
sarc/
Don't you know, we aren't to discuss Rudy's past, post facts, or say anything here that would reveal who Rudy really is? Besides, it isn't about his past actions, it's about what he *SAYS* he will do in the future. We gotta believe him, if you don't believe me well, just wait...the Rudybots are coming to set us straight!!!
What say you sir?
Rudy, the left wing media adores him, the MSM loves him, spineless jellyfish drool after him.
Me I am waiting for the Newt bomb to be dropped on them all!
Rudy stands not much of a chance getting any conservative votes unless his opponent is the Hildabeast. Compared to anyone else, he's a radical left-winger.
The full ping list from napkinuser's page (hope you don't mind, napkinuser)
From race42008.com:
...the Politico has an article discussing the judges Giuliani appointed while mayor of NYC. The article claims those judges have tended to lean left, and thus Giuliani’s past record of appointing judges conflicts with his present claims that he would appoint judicial conservatives.
This article is quite misleading. Anyone with even a slight understanding of NYC politics and NYC courts understands that the legal community in NYC is overwhelmingly liberal. The panels chosen to investigate and approve judicial candidates are controlled by the local borough Democrat parties. Thus, in general, the only candidates “approved” by these panels are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats. Ultimately, the mayor has almost no practical effect on the process, and is left to choose from the best of the worst, so to speak. Genuine merit or legal acumen rarely factors into the panels’ approvals. Tus, there is an enormous difference between who Giuliani was able to pick in NYC and who he would be able to pick as president.
Another important consideration, which is mentioned in the article, is that the judges the mayor appoints hear and decide low level cases that rarely involve any of the issues a federal judge would hear. In fact, these issues are so banal and tedious they are rarely heard by the NY Supreme Courts, which are the trial level courts in NY, much less the Appellate Divisions and the Court of Appeals. The judges the mayor is involved in selecting sit in City criminal courts (mostly misdemeanor and petty stuff), the family courts, and the Civil Court, which is essentially small claims court. Needless to say, these judges rarely deal with constitutional issues, with major statutory cases, or with issues that have major social/cultural implications.
In conclusion, there is almost nothing to infer from Giuliani’s NYC judicial appointments when attempting to guess who or what he might look to when selecting federal judicial nominees. The article is misleading and is an attempt to make conservatives (both judicial and social) doubt Giuliani and his commitment to place judicial conservatives on the courts.
I'm not sold on Rudy, but if you think he was going to be a conservative mayor of NYC in all respects, you need your head examined. You need to understand what that city is, its demographics, etc. For Giuliani to clean up crime and control the budget and taxes were major profiles in courage. That is a left wing city to the core. NYC is the origin of everything liberal left wing.
Yeah. How does it feel?????? /sarc
I think there is a Principal from Nitschmann Middle School available for appointment.
LMAO!
LOL. We can't be judging Morals now, can we???
Who's gonna listen to a poster on "Donklephant?"
Now if it were "Elekey" that might be a different matter.
These recent stories have dampened my enthusiasm for Rudy- I will admit that. But the one thing that is notably absent in these Rudy bashing stories is exactly what actual flesh and blood conservative we're supposed to support who can beat Hillary.
You guys may delude yourself that Duncan Hunter or Newt Gingrich could beat Hillary, but no serious political commentator thinks that is the case. In case you didn't notice, conservatives didn't exactly knock 'em dead in the 2006 Congressional elections.
So yes, I'm leaning towards Rudy as the only candidate I see us having who can beat Hillary. You guys can "keep it real" with Duncan Hunter if you want, but Hillary would wet herself with glee if she saw us nominate someone like that.
I want Hillary to be shrieking at her advisers on election night 2008, not gloating at all of us. And Rudy is the guy I see us having who can make her lose, and lose big.
> I'm not sold on Rudy, but if you think he was going to be
> a conservative mayor of NYC in all respects, you need
> your head examined.
If I understand the mindset rightly, the argument seems to amount to: no successful politician from either of the coasts will ever be acceptable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.