Posted on 11/15/2007 4:23:30 PM PST by wagglebee
Robertson said he opposes abortion and believes life begins at conception but that there are "various ways to protect life" -- with appointing judges to the Supreme Court as the top method.
"And I think Rudy Giuliani has assured the American people that he's going to appoint justices in the likeness of Scalia and John Roberts, et cetera," Robertson explained. "And he has assured people that, he assured me and others, and I believe him."
Asked how he could support Giuliani when the former mayor supports abortion, Robertson told the Fox news program beliefs on abortion don't matter if a president appoints pro-abortion judges.
"It really doesn't matter what your belief is if the courts nullify what you do," he said.
"And so I'm interested in judges. I think in the last election, in my opinion, the three most important issues were judges, judges, and judges. And I think it's still that way in terms of abortion," Robertson said.
Told that Giuliani appointed judges as mayor that probably were not pro-life, Robertson insisted Giuliani is being truthful when it comes to his plans for Supreme Court appointees.
"Well, I think he's telling the truth. I mean, you could say, well, he's a liar, but he has assured the American people who his standards are," Robertson said. "But I'm just taking him at his word as to what he's going to do as president."
However, Giuliani has said that the judges he appoints could rule either way on the question of reversing the Roe v. Wade ruling that allowed unlimited abortions.
"It would be okay to repeal. Or it would be okay also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision," he said during a May Republican debate.
"But I think ultimately that decision that has to be made is one that government shouldn't make," Giuliani said in an August debate, restating his pro-abortion views. "Ultimately, a woman should make that with her conscience and ultimately with her doctor."
Pro-Life Ping
Stop Rudy Ping
I don’t want to hear it Pat!
It all boils down to “Do you believe Rooty?”
Not.
One real good reason why I ignore endorsements from most people and groups.
What am I missing here?
Thank God I follow Jesus and not some man with clay feet like Pat Robertson. Makes life so much easier to deal with.
“I mean, you could say, well, he’s a liar, but he has assured the American people who his standards are...”
Hahahaha...I’m sure he “assured” his wives that he wasn’t cheating on them.
The guy(rudi) is a piece of $hit. If he’d cheated/lied to his wives, he’ll cheat on you. Spit.
Aside from money and power, Robertson believes in nothing.
And Fox keeps on pushing Rudy.
I don't like what I'm seeing.
Mega-Barf Alert PING!
How does it help?
Hannity knows where his bread and butter come from. Ails and Murdoch are both Giuliani supporters. Of course they would have Robinson on. (I no longer watch 700 Club, Pat!)
The main reason it doesn’t matter, is because Rooty Toot has NEVER said that he would appoint pro-life justices, in fact he has indicated that he wouldn’t.
Here is what Rooty Toot said on July 21, 2005 on Hannity & Colmes:
“Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163223,00.html
Not exactly.
Rudy Giuliani:
"Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them."
- Thursday, July 21, 2005, Hannity and Colmes Fox News interview
Yep, that interview shows EXACTLY what type of person we could expect Rooty Toot to appoint. He said that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was just as qualified as John Roberts.
Alan Colmes is a liberal and honest about it, Hannity is a RINO but unwilling to admit it. Colmes shows a lot more integrity than Hannity does.
The four of them can burn in hell together for all I care.
Ping!
The sad part is, I trust NEITHER Giuliani, Romney or Thompson (my favorite) to appoint strict constructionist pro-lifers.
High time. Several years ago, Pat more or less gave a pass to the ChiComs for their forced one child policy. I think he was angling for broadcast rights there or some such thing.
Makes perfect sense, Rooty is a liar and though he is clear about not supporting pro life, we have every reason to beleive he will appoint pro life judges because WHAT????????????? He SAID SO???????????? are you f@#$ing kidding me?
Contrary to what Pat Robertson and the other Rooty Rooters would have us believe, Rooty Toot has NEVER indicated that he would appoint pro-life judges.
I’m glad he spared us the “God told me ......” speech.
That’s reserved for health shakes.
Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani makes sense if you believe we must have a president focusing on this country’s security for any future hope of discussion of social issues, and if you believe Giuliani is that person. I think the first is probably true, but I believe none of the candidates can provide the leadership of a Lincoln.
The country’s existence remained unchallenged since the Civil War, so we forgot the Constitutional priority for defending a country in which civil liberties would reside. Federalist Papers 28 and 74 discuss the subject; also the dissenting opinion of Robert Jackson in Terminiello v. City of Chicago. Jackson as chief prosecutor at Nuremberg of Nazi war criminals understood preservation of a democratic society as a precondition to civil liberties and rational discussion of social issues. I’m not about to compromise a pro-life stance, until I see some extraordinary leadership potential. But then wouldn’t that person also probably possess the integrity and common sense to be pro-life?
Hannity is not a rino...just a little immature “let’s beat hillary” cheerleader
Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani makes sense if you're a Robertson fan. If the nation's secuity is Pat's primary concern, he's got a stable of Republican candidates who can deliver, some like Hunter and McCain with actual experience in the field. No disrespect intended for Rudy's contension that a Mayor's supervision of the police force equates with the position of CIC.
No, he’s a RINO. Hannity has spent the entire year pushing Rooty Toot every chance he gets, he has done everything he can to obscure Rooty’s pro-abortion stance, pro-homosexualism, pro-illegal alien, gun grabbing agenda.
Rooty Toot turned the NYPD over to a criminal.
That’s the problem. It’s not just that Rudy isn’t pro-life. he also doesn’t have integrity
Sadly, Pat’s a few verses shy of a full sermon and has allowed his old Democrat ways make a come back.
Go Fred go.
Didn’t Robertson say that Bush would appoint judges who would overturn Roe? Who’s he kidding?
One-issue voters deserve what they get, and it won’t be the thing they’re voting for.
Hey Pat, I have a bridge I’ll sell you cheap.
I see your point here, and in the wide expanse of American history that may be true, but over the last generation it has not been true with Republicans. Democrats always put people on the court with whom they agree - secular humanist leftists. Republicans tend to put liberals on the court that they were certain were conservatives when they made hte nomination. Bush has done fairly well, though he has given up on a few excellent nominees. But rememebr that the lobbying to keep Bush's appointments conservative has been intense behind the scenes.
Can someone remind me which statement about abortion I'm supposed to believe: the one in the debate where he says Roe v. Wade is bad law and he doesn't personally believe in abortion, but it doesn't matter whether it's overturned or not; the one he supposedly gave Pat Robertson; the one he gave in his speech before NARAL when he was being honored for his undying support of abortion anytime for any reason; the one he gave when he was considering running about NEVER changing his mind about supporting partial-birth abortion; the one he gave after running that maybe he didn't support partial-birth abortion after all; the one where he says that taxpayers must pay for poor women's abortions; or some other one that I've forgotten. Thanks!
I think it is far easier for the 'Rats to pick a secularist and and be CERTAIN that they will stay that way. Republicans have been fooled a bunch of times. However, the point still remains that no president ever has or ever will appoint a Supreme Court justice who they do not BELIEVE agrees with them.
Of course he's got the time factor card there. IMO a better example of his lack of judgement is his Homeland Security recomendation, at a time allegations were being made. While I've no way of knowing what Rudy knew and when, when you've had a long personal and professional relationship like Rudy/Kerick, you should have developed some sense of the individual, thus the recomendation was likely either poor judgement or turning his gaze away, neither recomendations for office.
robertson’s support can be explained with one word... Gold.
Robertson is most concerned about protecting his interest in his liberian gold mine.
(its a camel and needle thing)
How stupid can one be? Rudy appointed liberal/Democrat judges 8 to 1 over Republican/conservatives.
What drugs is Pat taking that allows him to believe that Rudy will suddenly turn conservative?
This is a truly bizarre endorsement. Robertson chooses Rudy based on nothing more than his word on judicial appointments when Rudy’s actual record has been nothing but extremely pro-gay and pro-abortion.
what has rudy have to do with that?
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.