[TitansAFC]

---"Appointing strict constructionists judges works for me because I believe social issues belong in my home, my community, my church, and my state not at the Federal level.
Ah, but the social-issue conservatives believe that the President can rule by decree and eliminate abortion, gay marriage, and nullify the 20,000+ existing gun-control laws overnight that preceded Rudy's two-terms as NYC mayor."---

No, we're just not gullible enough to believe that Rudy Giuliani would ever appoint a judge who he thinks might - possibly - overturn law he holds sacrosanct, like Roe vs. Wade or Campaign Finance Reform, or gun restrictions. If you think he'd give us anything to the right of Kennedy, you're a fool.

I think it's downright revealing that you'd support a candidate who thinks Roe vs. Wade is good law, and then expect us to believe he'd nominate judges who'd overturn what he thinks is good law. What the hell kind of nutso stuff is that? Who deliberately and knowingly appoints judges who hold contrary views to oneself on various key and important laws?

There is zero chance - ZERO chance - we'd get a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court (or for that matter the many, many appointments besides SCOTUS) from Rudy Giuliani. None, zip, nada.

His record is that of appointing liberal judges, period.

[narses]

I wonder, is it spam to repeat truth?

His record is that of appointing liberal judges, period.
His record is that of appointing liberal judges, period.
His record is that of appointing liberal judges, period.
His record is that of appointing liberal judges, period.
His record is that of appointing liberal judges, period.
His record is that of appointing liberal judges, period.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Bush I nominated Souter and Reagan nominated O'Connor and even Bork was vehemently anti-2nd Amendment.

So your argument is invalid.