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 ...
Rudy come lately the Liberal in Conservative clothing has way too much liberal history for me to ever consider giving him a vote. For the ones using the reasoning he saved NYC after 9/11 which was by in large a federal effort? Well gee if Ed Koch who BTW endorsed Bush in 2004 changes parties will they support him as well? Rudy is on record as supporting Hillary. If Hillary tomorrow became a Republican I can see many in here jumping on her bandwagon as the GOP's newfound hero.
Thanks PKM, for your research.
You are most welcome!
I agree.
I think that you are going to wear that great gif out, over the coming years.
The truth is many are single issue or social issue only conservatives. Disagree with them on *their* issue and you are to the left of Hillary.
Please show me the quote where Giuliani said he supported Roe v Wade.
Thank you
The GOP by in large was born of one issue. It's first POTUS took the nation to war over that one issue. Some issues are not for negotiating. Abortion, The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed {what is so difficult about those words?}, and our borders are the three most serious issues.
You or others may not mind asking Big Brother if you may purchase and own a firearm. I'm not sure where you stand on that issue though. But me and many many others resent the hell out of it and think it's none of governments business except possibly for forbidding violent crime convicted felons. If they are arrest them on possession and stop the unnecessary insane jumping through hoops for law abiding citizensd to buy weapons on demand.
What part of "shall not be infringed" does Rudy and others not yet understand? Mr Noah Webster one of the men who helped form this nation defined infringed as meaning "Broken; violated; transgresses." That settles that issue IMO and I will not vote for ones wishing to subvert it's meaning. Rudy has many sigle issues which total up to I'm never voting for him.
Good work, PhiKapMom, not that it will stop the absolute mantra of lies about Rudy appointing leftist judges. But it's saved to my file and I appreciate your checking this out. This is what freepers USED to do -- actual research -- and something the spammer can't be bothered to do.
See http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778466/posts for Rudy's views on NARAL and abortion.
Since 1978, merit selection has been used to select judges of New York City’s criminal and family courts and to fill mid-term vacancies on the city’s civil court. Established by executive order, the mayor’s advisory committee on the judiciary evaluates applicants and nominates highly qualified candidates. The mayor may not appoint a judge who has not been nominated by the committee. http://www.ajs.org/js/NY_methods.htmNow, let's use our brains for a second here. Hmmmm...the Mayor's Advisory Committee on the Judiciary....the Mayor's Committee....hmmmmm. You know, that may just mean that the committee is appointed by the Mayor!.
I know that hurt a bit, doing that kind of deductive reasoning, but let's continue.
Section 5 of the Executive Order establishing the selection method says:
The Committee shall consist of nineteen members, each residing or having a principal place of business in the City of New York, all of whom shall be appointed by the Mayor.Giuliani had no problem taking credit for making judicial appointments either. From a 1998 press release:
"Judicial appointments are among a Mayor's most important responsibilities," Mayor Giuliani said. "The decisions made by judges affect the lives of all New Yorkers and influence the caliber of our entire justice system. Judge Fran Lubow has demonstrated a commitment to upholding the law and protecting the most vulnerable among us, including our children and others who come before her, by dispensing justice with dedication, fairness and integrity. I am pleased to reappoint her and, on behalf of all New Yorkers, I congratulate her on her continued public service."
Codswallowing....good one. But wrong.
Great post.
Thank you.
It is amazing what these people think that they can get away with.
They think they're Jedi.
Thanks! I have decided they can ping me all they want and I am not getting in any discussion with spammers or any Freepers that cannot check out the facts and all they do is spin. No rule on here that says we have to answer pings! :)
It's good to hear that you've given up talking to yourself.
Think so? Me too. LOL Some FReepers have thrown away basic reasoning and instead, flat out ignore the facts as they exist. Just more Rudy inspired double-talk.
It got quiet in this thread all of the sudden. All the high-fiving over a certain post seems to have disappeared. I guess they're off having their Rudygasms in another thread now.
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.