[VRWCmember]

One, he can appoint strict constructionist judges who interpret the Constitution as written, as opposed to the hocus-pocus, magical finding of things that are not there in reality. Guiliani has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he intends to do exactly that.

In other words, Rudy said he believes in strict constructionist judges, so the author takes him at his word with no ACTUAL demonstration of his actual commitment to do so.

[Little Ray]

Actually he demonstrated quite the opposite. He got to appoint a bunch of judges to family and criminal courts - and only two of them were Republicans. There is no reason to believe him about appointing "strict constructionist" judges.

Then again, a man who believes the 2nd Amendment is about hunting probably wouldn't know "strict constructionist" if it bit him on the @$$.

[HitmanLV]

In other words, Rudy said he believes in strict constructionist judges, so the author takes him at his word with no ACTUAL demonstration of his actual commitment to do so.

He hasn't had an ACTUAL opportunity to nominate an appellate judge during his political career, either. Holding him to your proposed standard is silly.