Rudy (Giuliani) On Judges

Captain's Quarters ^ | February 03, 2007

[dirtboy]

Well done.

I do love the spin that Rudy's judicial appointments aren't his fault. It took them, what, four days or so to come up with that, and that's the best they can do?

Of course, they don't have much to work with when the facts are that much against them.

[dervish]

You still have not linked me to a quote where Giuliani says he supports the Roe v Wade decision. I looked around for one and could not find anything. So maybe you want to change your table to something that more closely resembes what he did say.

For some people, myself included, there is a difference. Roe v Wade is not just about abortion. It is about how the Constitution is to be interpreted. And as the issue in this thread is just that - whether Giuliani will appoint strict constructionist judges - your table is misleading.

[Spiff]

You still have not linked me to a quote where Giuliani says he supports the Roe v Wade decision. I looked around for one and could not find anything. So maybe you want to change your table to something that more closely resembes what he did say.

I gave you a quote where, in 2000, Giuliani said that Roe v. Wade was "good law." I'm looking for a link to the actual transcript, but it's a bit dated for there to be one online. Just Google for it and you'll find the quote.

Here's a challenge for you. About the only defense the Giuliani has on this issue is the shibboleth that he's going to appoint "strict constructionist" justices "like Roberts and Alito". Never mind that his history in appointing judges while he was Mayor of New York City was quite the opposite in that respect, but I challenge you to find a recent quote from Roberts or Alito wherein either one says that they oppose or want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Giuliani and the RudyRooters want to pretend that Giuliani is somehow saying in codewords that he's against Roe v. Wade and wants to overturn it by invoking Roberts and Alito. In truth, neither Roberts nor Alito have come out against Roe v. Wade. Their answers in their confirmation hearings were similar to Giuliani's on the matter - it's been precedent for a long time, it's settled law, you have to respect Roe v. Wade, etc. You have to go back over 20 years on both of them to find anything wherein they remotely demonstrate opposition to Roe v. Wade. The White House even called the Joe Scarborough program (scroll down near bottom) on MSNBC and asked them to correct an on screen banner they were using that said "Roberts: Overturn Roe v. Wade". So, it is NOT "settled" that either Roberts or Alito want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Yet that's Giuliani's very Clintonesque way of finessing the issue and trying to pretend that he secretly (despite a lifelong history of ardent support for abortion) doesn't totally, completely, unequivocally support Roe v. Wade.

There's no problem with the accuracy of the chart I created on this issue. You can argue semantics all day but that won't change the reality of Giuliani's well established support for abortion to include the Roe v. Wade decision.

[Rodney King]

The problem you are having is assuming that some people are interested in the GOP winning because of the policies that it might follow. To certain people GOP vs. DNC is no different than a sports game. They want their team to win, so they feel good about themselves, that they are part of the winning team.

[dervish]

"I gave you a quote where, in 2000, Giuliani said that Roe v. Wade was "good law."

No you did not. You gave me links to NARAL self-promotion not Giuliani's words. As I said I also did a search and could not find Rudy saying "Roe was good law." So until you can quote it, you ought to change your chart.

[Spiff]

No you did not. You gave me links to NARAL self-promotion not Giuliani's words. As I said I also did a search and could not find Rudy saying "Roe was good law." So until you can quote it, you ought to change your chart.

Please learn to read. You missed the portion about the interview on ABC's "This Week" with Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson in 2000 where Giuliani claimed that Roe v. Wade was "good law." The chart is correct. I'm not changing it to soften his view one bit. And with the revelations that came today from his campaign documents, I've got a few more things to add that won't make him look good at all.

[dervish]

I can read and I can also see you have no quote and no link for that quote. It strikes me as your brand of urban legend.

I took the time and looked for it. It does not exist. So link it or drop it.

[The_Eaglet]

You don't need to change anythng about Giuliani in your chart. Keep up the good work!

[Spiff]

I can read and I can also see you have no quote and no link for that quote. It strikes me as your brand of urban legend. I took the time and looked for it. It does not exist. So link it or drop it.

I'm sorry if Giuliani's support for Roe v. Wade is so disturbing to you. He's had every opportunity to deny support for Roe v. Wade and he's dodged the question every time or said that it is "good law". His record more than sufficiently demonstrates his support for the decision and far worse. The chart is accurate on this and other issues whether you choose to accept it or not.

[Mia T]

Let's take your 'logic' one step further, Spiff. The mayor appoints the committee. Hmmm.

In that case I revert to my original hypothesis, namely, that the appointments were payback of debts acquired sloshing through the NYC political scene for all those years. Let's be real, shall we? Unless a Republican who served for Reagan befriends NY democrats, he ain't gettin' elected to nuttin' in NY.

That said, I don't think you get it. Giuliani's personal view on abortion--indeed, abortion per se-- is NOT the dispositive issue for me.

My thinking follows.
Note that Giuliani's position on abortion is nowhere to be found in my argument.

Indeed, I explicitly deny considering his ideology (other than his strict constructionism). ¹

Check out what the wonderful conservative warrior, R. Emmett Tyrrell has to say.

I hope and pray that Tyrrell is right, that all factions will come to their senses and unite in the end, around Rudy [or, I would add, whichever candidate gets the nod].

The 'logic' of those refusing to vote for Rudy:

Rudy is a too 'liberal' 'New Yorker' so they will place their de facto vote for missus clinton, a Stalinist New Yorker, albeit fake, (fake New Yorker, not fake Stalinist), who

• as one-half of the 'twofer,' is the proximate cause of 9/11,
  
• is an abuser of women in her own right,
  
• is avidly pro-abortion,
  
• would nominate justices in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
  
• would resume clinton sale of our nuclear secrets and mineral rights to the enemy,
  
• would sic the IRS and the clinton 'secret police' on all opponents and critics,
  
• would nationalize healthcare,
  
• would decimate the military,
  
• would reinstitute the clinton policy of ignoring of terrorism,
  
• would raise taxes...
  
• even as she and her rapist husband rake in millions in quid pro quos for their slush fund foundation,
  
• would confiscate profits, end capitalism, if she could, etc., etc.

 

 

It does the conservative cause no good to become petulant and self-destructive.

Do conservatives really want

• a Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court instead of an Alito, Roberts or Scalia?
  
• marginalization, if not worse, of their religious beliefs?
  
• a return to the amorality, immorality and corruption of the clinton years?
  
• and G-d knows what depth of failure in the War on Terror?

I find it hard to believe that those people aren't able to discern the difference between Giuliani and clinton. Frankly, if true, it is frightening.

goto:

STALINIST RISING?
HILLARY CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER
(WHERE IS THE UNREDACTED BARRETT REPORT ANYWAY?)

I am advocating for Giuliani not because of his ideology. I am advocating for him because I believe he possesses the qualities that this country desperately needs in these perilous times... and because I believe he, unlike all of the others, will actually win.

The other night, I heard a man who is not perfect, but a man of rare intelligence, humility, warmth, competence, strength and leadership.

We will be fortunate, indeed, and our babies, born and unborn, living and not yet imagined, will be infinitely safer, if he is our next president.

---

P.S. Want to see wholesale abortion for real? Deny the nomination to the only R who would trounce clinton, or alternatively, place your de facto vote for clinton in the general election.

(Get it yet?)

[PhiKapMom]

Very well said. The board that Rudy appointed was given the names of candidates that were ranked according to merit throughout the boroughs. Not many conservative Republicans would make a list based on merit except in Staten Island. You deal with the hand you are dealt and finding a Conservative Republican candidate that could get passed the boroughs and any board would be slim to non-existent.

[Mia T]

thank you.

It is crucial that we, all of us, put aside our emotions and think bottom line. We will do incalculable harm to our babies AND our liberties if we allow the clintons to retake the WH.

[The_Eaglet]

We don't need any more Republicans in the White House who continue to approve funding Planned Parenthood with our tax dollars, either. We need to end the liberal legacies of the Bushes and Clintons.

[Spiff]

You still have not linked me to a quote where Giuliani says he supports the Roe v Wade decision. I looked around for one and could not find anything.

Here's your damned link. But I see you're already in the thread spinning the damage as fast as you can. Pathetic, actually...

[dervish]

"msnimje wrote:
You need dates and context to interpret, " I think Roe v. Wade is good constitutional law?"

... who was it that said (at his recent confirmation hearing in the Senate), that "Roe v. Wade is settled law"?

Think REAL hard...

It was none other than John G. Roberts, who was President Bush's nominee to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court."


71 posted on 03/01/2007 6:35:52 PM EST by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

So yes context counts.

Umm and I still did not get a link, just a sound bite.

Check out this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793558/posts

[Sun]

bump

[Sun]

This from Politico says that Rudy picked the PANEL, which recommends the candidates:

“When Giuliani took office in 1994, he inherited a system of judicial appointments created by one of his predecessors, Ed Koch, and designed to insulate the courts from political influence. Under the system, the mayor appoints members of an independent panel. Aspiring judges apply to the panel, which recommends three candidates for each vacancy.”

excerpt http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2957.html