Posted on 01/23/2008 10:31:44 AM PST by jdm
It took Nixon to go to China. It took Bill Clinton, a Democrat, to get control of the federal deficit. (Sorry, conservatives, but it’s true.) And it might take Rudy Giuliani to appoint solid Supreme Court Justices.
With Fred Thompson out of the race, judicial conservatives are looking for a candidate. John McCain? Three words: Gang of 14. Mike Huckabee? He’ll never be President. Mitt Romney? Ehhhh . . . he might be OK — but I think he comes across to voters as too slick and unprincipled. And there may be a reason for that.
But there’s no reason, in my judgment, to question Rudy Giuliani on the issue of judges. This is the argument made in a September 2007 New York Times op-ed piece that I think is worth resurrecting with Thompson’s exit. The op-ed was written at a time when Giuliani was looking much stronger in the polls, but the substance of the op-ed still holds:
I think Mr. Giuliani will be the most effective advocate for the pro-life cause precisely because he is unreligious and a supporter of abortion rights.
The author makes a very persuasive case:
In a televised Republican debate, Mr. Giuliani said it would be “O.K.” if Roe were overturned but “O.K. also” if the Supreme Court viewed it as a binding precedent. Despite this ambivalence, Mr. Giuliani promises to nominate judges who are “strict constructionists.” His campaign Web site explains: “It is the responsibility of the people and their representatives to make laws. It is the role of judges to apply those laws, not to amend our Constitution without the consent of the American people.”
Roe v. Wade, with no textual warrant in the Constitution, struck down the states’ democratically enacted restrictions on abortion. By fighting Roe, pro-lifers aim not to make abortion illegal by judicial fiat, but to return the decision about how to regulate abortion to the states, where we are confident we can win.
Our greatest obstacle is the popular belief that overturning Roe would automatically make abortion illegal everywhere. In fact, our goal may well be undermined by politicians like President Bush, who seem to use “strict constructionist” as nothing more than code for “anti-abortion.”
Only a constitutionalist who supports abortion rights can create an anti-Roe majority by explaining that the end of Roe means letting the people decide, state by state, about abortion.
Mr. Giuliani’s ambivalence about the end of Roe is consistent with his belief that judges should not seek to achieve political ends. This is a judicial philosophy that pro-lifers should applaud, not condemn. It is, after all, the position consistently articulated by the pro-life movement’s favorite Supreme Court justices: John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
Indeed.
I am ambivalent about abortion myself. I’m not confident that abortion is “murder” from the very moment of conception. But I think the inflexible law created by the Supreme Court has created a set of rules that allow abortions too late, for flimsy or nonexistent justifications.
But regardless of your personal view, we should all be able to agree that the issue should be decided by We the People and not nine lawyers wearing robes.
I think Rudy believes that. Last time I checked, Rudy’s advisory committee was people with folks I respect and trust on this issue, like Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada. These are not weak-kneed adherents of a living Constitution, and I don’t think Rudy is either.
Mr. Giuliani makes the same arguments that we pro-lifers make. But he can be more persuasive because he will not be perceived as trying to advance his own religious preferences. By taking the side of pro-lifers for democratic, but not devout, motives, a President Giuliani could shake up the nearly 35-year-old debate over Roe v. Wade.
I agree. I think Rudy could make that happen — if only Republicans would allow him to be the nominee.
Since Rudy will never be president, it’s all moot and irrelevant. I am struck by the notion that a person can say they’re “not confident” that abortion represents, at the very least, a killing, but a murder because it is done for no other cause than convenience. Once unimagineable advances in medical technology have, as far as I can see, made such mythical fancies nothing more than positions taken without information. “Opinions” or “confidence” (or lack thereof) which are not supported by available scientific evidence are meaningless.
I’m still hoping for a couple of SC exits this spring. One can wish.
Yep,,,,with that skewed, pathetic and unbelievably bogus logic...HILLARY WOULD BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE ADVOCATE FOR THE PRO-LIFE CAUSE!!!! Heck,,,,she would be even better!!,,,lol
Sad but true.
“It took Bill Clinton, a Democrat, to get control of the federal deficit.”
Huh?
A common misunderstanding. The TECH REVOLUTION, THE ECONOMY and the BOOMING STOCK MARKET CAPITAL GAINS REVENUES are what balanced the budget IN SPITE OF HillBILLery, NOT because of him.
Bill Clinton had none of the huge problems that faced the US after the dot com crash and 9/11. It was smooth sailing during his regime - just sheer luck.
Had not heard this, what property?
I would be the best hall monitor because I am a child molester...
“Message to Religious Conservatives: Giuliani Would Appoint Solid Supreme Court Justices”
The man would pay for the murder of his own grandchild but he wouldn’t lie to get my vote. Is that what I’m supposed to swallow here?
He enabled Hillary by not running (for Senate) in 2006.
He’ll enable Hillary if he runs as the (R) nominee in 2008.
I like Rudy better than Romney.
LOL Rooty is an enabler. I don’t think he seems too commanding in this race either. His debate performances fail to inspire and he seems more wimpy than tough.
No that's not true. The Republicans' era of the "Contract With America" was what brought the deficit down.
"Strict constructionist" according to what he thinks it means. Kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye, and watch out for the 4th.
Cars.
Rudy wouldn’t know a constructionist judge if he met one. Since Rudy has no clue about the constitution (especially where gun rights are concerned), how would he know if a judge is a constructionist, or not?
As for those who say he has good advisors... again, how would he know?
He made New York safe they say. Bahgdad was safe under Saddam (or so we are told). Police states usualy do have safe streets.
When defending his anti-2d amendment record on the Hannity show he clearly stated, on two separate occasions, that gun-control was a “states rights issue”. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. But I am supposed to believe he will know a constructionist judge when he sees one and then stand behind that nomination when the Dems give him both barrels.
Not buying it.
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.