"Giuliani would appoint strict constructionists to the judiciary "
First off, administrators appoint people who mirror their own beliefs. That is what we will get regardless of rhetoric to the contrary.
Below are two examples of his perspective on the the Fourth Amendment which states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
From Rudy's weekly address at http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2001a/weekly/wkly0205.html we can see his view of reasonable:
"The Commissioner has implemented a new stop-and-frisk policy that will require police to explain to the person being stopped the reason for the frisk.
A revised reporting form also contains a checklist of circumstances that form the basis for the stop, such as "unusual nervousness," and "suspicious bulge," along with other factors, like bloodstains or a ringing burglar alarm. This will make it easier to analyze what the officers are doing and give a better explanation to people of why they were stopped."
Also at http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/99a/me990221.html
he says: "Finally, I want to briefly mention a new Police Department policy that went into effect on Monday. The Police Department will seize the vehicles of those who are arrested for Driving While Intoxicated -- and the vehicles will only be returned after the completion of the civil forfeiture proceeding, entirely independent of the criminal charges. "
In http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2001b/weekly/wkly0813.html he says "4,000 vehicles have been seized in an effort to deter drunk driving."
I fail to see how anyone could reconcile these proudly made statements with your belief that he would only appoint strict constructionists.
Rudy on John Roberts nomination:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163223,00.html
COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade -- You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...
GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.
I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her. I expect, and listening to Senator Nelson, I expect that John Roberts will get support from a lot of Democrats.
COLMES: Now, he is coming under fire from some Democrats for claiming — they're claiming he is a partisan, that he had a behind-the-scenes role in advising the Florida attorney general during the 2000 election fight, that he gave money to the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign...
GIULIANI: He's a Republican.
COLMES: ... made the maximum. Is that...
GIULIANI: Who do you think the president's going to appoint?
COLMES: All right, but in other words...
GIULIANI: How many Republicans did President Clinton appoint?
COLMES: Should it be partisan like that?
GIULIANI: He isn't that partisan. He's a Republican who believes in the Republican Party and no more partisan than lots of people who get appointed to the United States Supreme Court and turn out to be excellent justices.
COLMES: So it's not an issue if you've donated ...
(CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: Earl Warren was the governor of a state. He was the Republican-elected governor of a state and...
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: ... donated money to the guy whose nominated you, if you've given him money, money to his campaign, if you've worked to get him elected, behind the scenes advising the attorney general?
GIULIANI: Sure. That's be exactly the kind of person you'd think that you'd want to appoint, somebody who shares kind of your general outlook, but hasn't indicated and hasn't really predetermined most of the cases that are going to be determined by the court.
Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them. It's sort of an extraordinary thing to ask of President Bush. Nobody asked it of President Clinton.
President Clinton appointed people that basically agreed with his political philosophy, which is left of center. Of course, President Bush is going to appoint people that basically agree with his political philosophy. And then what we found out about the Supreme Court is, we don't really know until after they're on the court where they're going to end up.