Posted on 02/09/2007 4:46:09 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Given the more liberal tendencies of Rudy Giuliani on abortion and guns, conservatives have expressed serious misgivings about his run for the nomination. However, the main effect that a President can have on these issues involves his or her outlook on the judiciary. The federal court system has been the main battleground for both issues, with Roe specifically precluding any kind of legislative action. Court nominations have become one of the essential considerations for presidential contenders -- and it may be more important for Giuliani than any other Republican candidate.
Giuliani has hinted that he would nominate jurists in the mold of Antonin Scalia and John Roberts. Today, at a visit with the South Carolina GOP Executive Committee, an audience member pressed him for his position. His campaign office has supplied us with the transcript of his answer:
On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I'm a lawyer. I've argued cases in the Supreme Court. I've argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that's part of our freedom and when that's taken away from you that's terrible.
It sounds as if Rudy has what could be an unbeatable combination. His personal views trend to the center and perhaps even liberal on these issues -- but he wants to nominate jurists that will return these questions to the...
(Excerpt) Read more at captainsquartersblog.com ...
Observe in post 155, Jim Robinson's calm, reasoned way to present an argument without billyclubbing the other person with an argument...
VERY nice!
I don't think narses wants a calm reasoned discussion. Knee jerk is much easier on the brain.
I am sorry you would believe I would give up MY core beliefs because the candidate you may favor has the R by his name. He does not share my and a LOT of others views on what conservatism means.
We lost in the last elections BECAUSE the people who claimed to be conservative forgot what that meant while they were in power.
Evidently, you have also.
" Since it's obvious you're not supporting Rudy, then that leaves the social-conservative Congresscritters."
LOL, logic isn't a strong suit for you, is it?
Maybe the basic courtesy of a ping when you try and attack or mention other posters is beyond you, but it is customary here. As for your slanderous attack, you might try reading the thread. You'll find nothing to support your odd POV here.
Well, they can't control us or our votes so I know that makes them mad. But haranguing people about who they support really does not win friends.
All I know is I spent FAR too many years being a Clinton-hater. I despise that family too much to let the worst of them, Hillary, become president. President of this fine country.
Yet so many of them are cavalier about voting third party and such!
Indeed. And the answer?
{{{CRICKETS}}}}
Considerer yourself pinged. Knee jerk.
You are welcome!
LIEberman's record is farther to the left, than Hillary's is.
None of those whom you spuriously state are "toughly the same" as Rudy's, agree with him on the vast majority of CONSERVATIVE stances of Rudy's!
None of those Dems have ever been for tax cuts, cutting government, cutting welfare rolls, doing away with set aside for minorities and women, school vouchers, charter schools, doing away with open admission to all colleges, treating terrorists and dictators like the scum they are, turning down Saudi princes money, standing up to and refusing to meet and/or kow-tow to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and so much more that I shan't continue, because you really DON'T care to see the facts.
Suffice it to say, posting lies is NOT going to help you any.
Same here! I refuse to back a candidate that cannot beat Ms. Clinton and her husband because if they came as a package in 1992, they will come as a package this time!
Why others aren't is the question, which I believe I can guess at,with complete accuracy.
Some on this board want a legislative litmus test. They want to eliminate the ground for debate and label the folks who don't see things 100% their way. Gosh, I hope they are just pretending to be Conservatives. I hope that is not what the movement has become.
YES!!
What sort of cases do you figure are heard by the family and criminal courts in NYC?
Exactly! I hope what I see and read on here recently is not representative of what Conservatives are about today. If you don't agree 100% with some of these people, you are the scum of the earth. Group think or else it seems!
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.