Posted on 11/07/2006 6:24:36 AM PST by UncleSamUSA
Well, thousands, anyhow. Sorry.
That would do for me because the president has little to do about these matters anyway, as we have seen.
I don't think it's going to work out that way, for one very simple sober reason. There will be another serious terrorist attack before the 2008 election, and the people will be in no mood for ideological conceits. And they are not going to vote for a female president either, for the same reason.
Dear hinckley buzzard,
"Giuliani would be expected to be happy appointing conservative judges."
I think that Mr. Giuliani would be happy appointing statist judges. Mr. Giuliani displayed more than a little bit of an authoritarian streak both as prosecutor and as mayor. In New York City, that may even be a good thing.
Toward the end of his second term, he floated the idea of using civil forfeiture laws to take the cars of folks ACQUITTED of DUI. Frightening.
I expect he'd appoint judges who would generally cede power to the state.
Some of those folks might be like Justice Rehnquist (a pro-lifer, but a bit of a statist). Others might be more like "justice" Breyer or "justice" Ginsburg, both of whom had no problem with expansion of state power in Kelo vs. New London.
In fact, Mr. Giuliani has praised the appointments of both "justice" Breyer and "justice" Ginsburg, as well as the more recent appointments of Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. So, Mr. Giuliani is comfortable with a wide ideological array of judges and such. Which do we think a President Giuliani would pick? Justices and judges like Messrs. Roberts and Alito, for whom he'd have to fight tooth and nail, and expend significant political capital? Or "justices" like Mr. Breyer or Ms. Ginsburg, where he'd face little or no Republican opposition and overwhelming Democrat support?
A President Giuliani means that the courts will be polluted by social liberals who are also inclined to statism, that's all.
"As for the positions he 'supports,' I doubt that he has much commitment to fighting for these things."
I disagree. For some of these things, he fought passionately while mayor. With others, I've often been surprised how forthright he's been about his views, and when given the opportunity to trim, to obfuscate, to add "nuance," he has usually refused. I believe that he's a rather honest social liberal. Or at least, he has been up until now.
"That would do for me because the president has little to do about these matters anyway, as we have seen."
As I cited in my previous post, the president has more to do with these issues than any other single person in the United States. And only through the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices can the regime of abortion on the demand in the United States be overturned.
I won't vote for Mr. Giuliani, if he's nominated, and I believe that millions of social conservatives and pro-lifers will join me in that decision.
sitetest
Now think long and hard.
What the heck are you trying to say?
Good to hear from you HB. Hope all is well with you.
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.