Rudy (Giuliani) On Judges

Captain's Quarters ^ | February 03, 2007

[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...

[nopardons]

There are valid reasons why presidents come from a very few "classes"/strata and why others don't stand a chance.

Very few people, VERY FEW, are up to withstanding the CLINTON WAR ROOM and/or Soros money ( Soros is backing Obama ); not to mention the mashinations of the collective of the MSM, ACLU, NAACP, etc, attacks? One needs power and gobs of money; not to mention the knowhow and a great team, to battle the onslaught.

There isn't a single person in the lower tier of the GOP field who comes anywhere remotely close to being qualified to do the initial job required. Newt isn't going to run and he has the same or worse negative ratings vis-a-vis Hillary.

Neither is there anyone waiting in the wings, who will suddenly appear to be the GOP's savior".

[nopardons]

I am in quite a lovely "mood", as a matter of fact.

Oh, I see, something that is perhaps 1/100th% accurate is acceptable now, is it?

You see only what you want to see. Pity that.........

[Sun]

And politicians always keep their campaign promises.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Jim Robinson]

Right. There are no conservatives up to the task. Never have been, never will be. So we should just automatically throw out all principle and roll over for an abortionist, gay rights loving, gun grabbing liberal who's never been elected to any office higher than mayor of a corrupt northeastern liberal town? Why even pretend to have a conservative party then?

Have you ever heard of fighting on principle? Do you have any concept whatsoever of drawing the line they dare not cross? Or of defending life, liberty and country for ourselves and our posterity?

Thought not.

See tag line.

[potlatch]

[Peach]

I've never seen quite so many conservatives who are trying to shut down discussion. I'm telling ya, some good percentage of them are trolls stirring dissent among Republicans.

[tkathy]

Rudy served in the Reagan administration's Justice Department along with John Roberts, George Bush's appointee as chief justice of the Supreme Court. He was an aggressive special prosecutor. He trimmed affirmative action, effectively ended racial quotas at the City University of New York and championed school choice.

[Spiff]

That is a good point, but the judicial appointments of a Mayor are very different than that of a President. Municipal Judges oversee criminal law, family law, or traffic violations. They never handle Constitutional or Federal law. So there is a different criteria involved. Guiliani's priority in that case was to appoint people who were tough on crime, especially repeat offenders, and operate their courts honestly (of which there was a chronic shortage before he took office, thanks to his predecessors). So it's easy to draw the wrong conclusion from his appointment of many registered Democrats to the New York Courts.

I'm not agreeing with you. But I will say that there is a remote possibility that what you said is true. But, the reason that Giuliani's appointments of almost exclusively DEMOCRATS to such positions is brought up is to put to a lie the claims that Giuliani would make good judicial appointments. It demonstrates that there is absolutely no basis for such claims and that they are pure fantasy based upon a few of Giuliani's recent CampaignSpeak soundbites.

[Spiff]

Oh, I see, something that is perhaps 1/100th% accurate is acceptable now, is it?

You keep trashing my chart as "inaccurate". Yet you've failed since I researched it and posted it 2 weeks ago to point out a single inaccuracy. I am willing to debate any item on the chart and will make changes as more information comes to light. So far, in the past 2 weeks, I've only had to make minor, semantic tweaks to 2 items on the chart.

I'm debating making a change to Hillary's support of the war in Iraq. While she voted for it and has come under fire in her own party for supporting it, her recent statements WHILE CAMPAIGNING may show otherwise. However, that is what she SAYS now during a campaign, in order to get elected, and not what she has DONE. If I switch her position to opposing the war based upon what she SAYS during the campaign, and not based upon what she's actually DONE, I would have to change a number of Giuliani's positions too. If any candidate had voted against the war and they wanted to say now, in order to get elected, that they actually supported the war, you would insist upon saying that they're against the war. Right? It works the same way in reverse. Of course there's her recent vote in the Senate about funding for the war. I've even taken that into consideration and still, that was a purely political vote, it was non-binding. That's why Hillary's block on her support for the Iraq War is pink, not red, demonstrating weak support and stating that she "voted for it".

As I've said before, the chart is weighted heavily towards what the candidates have DONE in the past, and what their statements have been before they were speaking in CampaignSpeak as they were running for President. Anything they SAY now must be weighed against what they've actually DONE in the past and what they've said in more candid moments.

Here's the chart one more time. If you want to debate any portion of it. Be my guest. Every time someone does, it helps me refine it and increase its accuracy.

Giuliani/Clinton/Dem vs. GOP Platform Comparison
Issue	Giuliani	Clinton	Dem Platform	GOP Platform
Abortion on Demand	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Partial Birth Abortion	Supports Opposed NY ban	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Roe v. Wade	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Taxpayer Funded Abortions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Embryonic Stem Cell Research	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Federal Marriage Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Defined at state level	Supports
Gay Domestic Partnership/ Civil Unions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Openly Gay Military	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Defense of Marriage Act	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Amnesty for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Special Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Tough Penalties for Employers of Illegal Aliens	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Sanctuary Cities/ Ignoring Immigration Law	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Protecting 2nd Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Supports bans	Supports
Confiscating Guns	Supports Confiscated as mayor. Even bragged.	Supports	Supports Supports bans	Opposes
'Assault' Weapons Ban	Supports	Supports	Supports
Frivolous Lawsuits Against Gun Makers	Supports Filed One Himself	Supports		Opposes
Gun Registration/Licenses	Supports	Supports		Opposes
War in Afghanistan	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports	Supports
War in Iraq	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports Weak support	Supports
Patriot Act	Supports	Supports Voted for it 2001 & 2006	Opposes	Supports

"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani

[Jim Robinson]

Looks pretty accurate to me.

[Abundy]

How about adding McManiac and any other candidates for the Republican party nomination to the chart?

Should be quite interesting to see which R's actually have acted in accordance with the Party platform and who haven't - and which group the MSM is touting as a contender...

[Fierce Allegiance]

A giuliani campaign worker:

[BunnySlippers]

I was a Goldwater Girl in LA. (Didn't get beat up)

[PhilDragoo]

[narses]

Looks at least 99.44% accurate to me. Hey, nopardons, what say you?

[narses]

"Can he supply a list of the constitutionalist judges he appointed as mayor?"

Apparently not. That bodes ill for his campaign. His record is going to be an issue. It shows a very liberal set of judicial appointments. It shows a long series of questionable and corrupt appointments. (Kerik being the most memorable.) It will show speech after speech praising democrats, supporting democrats and dissing conservatives. He is peaking as we speak.

[Reagan Man]

Shes pulling on your chain, Spiff!!!

Your chart is accurate and it tells the story of Rudy`s liberal record versus Hillary's liberal record, versus both political party`s platforms. Its a report card on Rudy`s failures at being a conservative Republican. He is nothing more then a liberal RINO. Keep the chart up to date and don't pay attention to the silly juvenile rhetoric from the peanut gallery on FR.

I've been posting information on Rudy`s FINAL fiscal record as Mayor of NYCity for the last 5-6 months. That information comes DIRECTLY from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. A NYCity based think tank that has had friendly relations with Giuliani since his time as Mayor. In all that time, IIRC, only two FReepers have made any legitimate attempt to challenge the facts contained in my posting and in the end, they both failed miserably.

The Rudy-Rooters don't like their boy being challenged. They don't like the truth being used to criticize their boy. They want to ignore the facts of Rudy`s liberal record and hope that maybe everyone else will too. Ain't gonna happen. Conservatives who know better need to stay focused and remain on the political offensive against the anti-conservative forces of moderation, centrism and liberalism. Its bound to get worse as time passes. But our goal shouldn't change. Rudy must be STOPPED !!!

[wagglebee]

Rudy served in the Reagan administration's Justice Department along with John Roberts, George Bush's appointee as chief justice of the Supreme Court. He was an aggressive special prosecutor. He trimmed affirmative action, effectively ended racial quotas at the City University of New York and championed school choice.

There is no question that Rudy was an effective prosecutor; however, he carried out policy, he didn't make it.

[The_Eaglet]

Nice chart, Spiff!