[Congressman Billybob]

Uh, hasn't anyone noticed that what Rudy said in that debate could have been borrowed, concept by concept, from the last opinion that Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote on the question of abortion, before he died with his boots on? Obeying the Constitution as written is a "conservative" position. "Stare Decicis" or continuing the law in place as is, is also a "conservative" position.

Rehnquist covered both points in his last such opinion at greater length but to the same effect as Rudy did in this answer. I do not agree with the conclusion that Rehnquist reached, but I understand his logic.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Jeffrey Has Escaped, and Other Tales of Divorce"

[Alberta's Child]

1. Rudy Giuliani's position on abortion has nothing to do with stare decisis.

2. When dealing with legal decisions that have no basis in fact or in constitutional law, stare decises is a silly, cowardly approach to dealing with contentious issues -- regardless of which Supreme Court justices may have believed it in the past.

[George W. Bush]

No one here is going to buy your argument that Rehnquist's strong pro-life record is identical to Giuliani's wildly pro-abortion position.

Never going to happen.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

You're not convincing anyone, especially me.

[ellery]

But putting Stare Decicis ahead of a literal reading of the Constitution is not a strict constructionist/originalist position (contrary to Giuliani’s claims).

My real problem with Giuliani is that he has absolutely no concept or respect for what the Constitution and our founding documents mean and how work. He doesn’t even understand Constitution 101. That makes any Giuliani statement related to the Constitution unreliable.

[DB]

That’s assuming that the Roe v. Wade had a constititutional basis - which I don’t believe it does. Bad law is bad law.