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.
No way will I vote for Rudy.
.
as in all kinds of cars, upon suspicion of anything. Many were never charged and some acquitted, but did not get their property back.
It doesn’t take a constitution to respect life. And apparently, the best constitition ever written can’t protect the most innocent blood from a government of evil and corrupt men, answerable to no one but God, determined to sacrifice it.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
This headline needs a barf alert.
Re-draft Duncan Hunter into the Presidential Race
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1958247/posts
If you believe this then I got a bridge to sell ya...
I don’t honestly think Rudy is any threat to my guns. I know it makes people jumpy— and rightfully so— because he didn’t repeal NYC’s gun control. But I think he has no plan to enact any sort of nationwide gun control. It’s just not in the cards, IMHO. If anything, gun laws are softening nationwide. More states are enacting shall-issue rules, more people are carrying concealed than ever before, and more positive stories about the defensive use of guns are making it to the front page. The inertia is largely on our side for a change.
More importantly— we need to get control of congress. It may be our only hope.
The GOP is about to screw all of their candidates out of any chance to win. President Hillary will most certainly be a threat to our guns. We’ve got to get congress back before it’s too late.
Giuliani is running for president of my country and I look for not only what I want to see in a candidate but what I won't want to see. So this charge I had not heard before is troubling.
One more area for me to research on Giuliani.
Thanks again for the information.
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. Rudy
4. McCain
5. Obama
6. Hillary
On Judicial Appointments, the only area I like Huckabee over the others. On the war on terror, taxes, trade, global warming, I put him just a notch above Obama.
This post #1 made by jdm
I'm not a Rudy fan either and I don't believe a word he says about judicial appointments. No President I can think of has deliberately appointed SC Justices who would definitely go against his agenda. I am not about to believe that "honest" Rudy would be the first.
If Rudy can peddle that one on his judicial appointments, there is no telling what else he can sell to the naive.
I really coulda gone for Giuliani early out. But then and went he said that he was pro-abortion-licentiousness in the same breath he said he was a strict constructionist. Anyone who would say that is too much an idiot to get my vote, even if I didn’t disagree with him on moral grounds.
I hate to day this, but:
1. Huck
2. Romney
3. McCain
4. Giuliani
5. Hillary
6. Obama.
Hillary wrote about Saul Alinsky. Obama worked for his unit. And he’s got an islamofascist pedigree, even if he’s simply a UCC-style atheist now.
Rudy Giuliani is done, but I guess that he doesn’t know that yet. As soon as he frequently defended being pro-choice, starting last year, he seriously killed his chances of ever becoming POTUS.
Message to Religious Conservatives: Giuliani Would Appoint Solid Supreme Court Justices
While wearing a pick dress.”
_______________________
And living with a couple of queers.
My rank on who I want to make Judicial Appointments:
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
___________________________
Good point...thanks.
In Rudy’s world, Ruth Ginsberg could be a strict constructionist. And do you really think a man who has donated a ton of $$$ to NARL, will actually appoint judges you would undue the very thing Rudy and NARL has worked so hard to preserve. Not a chance. Rudy will nominate someone who claims not to be a “judicial activist” and then that person will vote to uphold Roe based on “precedent.”
Romney may be a liar, but unlike Rudy, he is at least claiming to be pro-life.
I may vote for Romney simply because he is at least TRYING to be a conservative (that may be the best we can do in this election)!!!!
I was going to post something but it looks like you guys have it all taken care of. On to the next article.
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.