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.
“Whether pro-life or pro-abortion the President will have no effect on the number of abortions performed.”
Ever heard of the Supreme Court?
Nothing Rudy has done in his past inspires the least bit of confidence that Rudy will appoint strict constructionist judges, or that he would want to. Besides, he will be dealing with a Democrat majority in the Senate. He might appoint some decent judges, just to make the claim that he tried, but you can bet his backup appointments would be considerably more liberal. ...But, this is all wasted energy. Rudy will be dropping out of this race soon. The Mittwits may hand Rudy his head in Florida.
Rudy’s in third in Florida. Smart money is he drops out after 1/29.
What bull cr@p. Rudy will appoint pro-abortion judges and claim that they are strict constructionist because they follow the precedent set by “settled law”—like Roe v. Wade.
Is that the one where you need 60 Senators, that means from both parties, to confirm your nomination?
No sale.
Not voting for a baby-killer.
My rank on who I want to make Judicial Appointments:
1. Huckabee
You can't be serious about this.
Mr. "Living, breathing document"? Appointing judges?
Ditto That
It’s kinda pointless to discuss anything if you’re just gonna make stuff up.
I really only care about one thing: Commander in Chief. That’s what I want. I’ll be voting for whoever the GOP nominee is, because they are ALL better than Hillary.
If we have people staying home in a cute little temper tantrum over something as meaningless as abortion in a Presidential election— well, that’s how Hillary and Bill will get back in the white house. Maybe they’ll do something about abortion... huh?
Under no circumstances will ever vote for Rudy or McCain
I look at PRIORITIES for this country. I think fighting terrorism is the #1 issue. Rudy seems to be in line with that more so than the rest of the RINOs we have to choose from. As far as SCOTUS appointments I’m scared of all of them.
There is no evidence to support this claim.
Secondly, he appointed liberal justices by an 8-1 margin in New York and has tried to redefine what a strict constructionalist is by saying one wouldn't have to vote to overturn Roe, so why on earth would anyone believe him?
I kinda of feel sorry for Rudy, though. If he lied as much Willard has, he might still have a chance.
Of course, you accuse me of “making stuff up” without having the courage or intellectual honesty to specifically state what I have allegedly made up. If you care to be specific, which I doubt, I will gladly provide quotes and links.
You may suffer from a willful ignorance of Rudy’s abortion positions, but I assure you I have followed the “Hero of 9/11’s comments on this matter closely.
As someone in uniform, I am very concerned about who the next Commander in Chief will be. However, I’m not willing to compromise my core principles just because I’m afraid of Hillary Clinton.
Yes,
That’s the one where Rudy’s liberal nominees would only need 10 or less RINO votes to get his nominees appointed. It looks like you are pinning all your hopes on the false assumption that activist judges could never get through the confirmed by the Senate. I can point to 5 current Supreme Court Judges that illustrate how wrong you are.
I agree that Rudy could probably find 10 RINO's to back a liberal SC nominee. I am certainly not for Rudy in any case. The question is, could Hillary get 10 Republicans to do the same.
So is the question about whether Hillary or Giuliani are more able to find 10 RINOs? I don’t understand - please explain, and also - I think I will start a discussion over at www.knowmenow.com on potential judges.
What kind of judges did Rudy actually appoint the last time he was in a position to appoint a judge? Oh, nevermind, that was then ... and this is now, right?
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.