Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

I'll agree but add another important point...as a matter of fact, I'd make it #2 behind terrorism/Iraq...supreme court nominations.

Everyone that says they could not vote for Rudy and will stay home ignores that one of the most important things the next POTUS will do is nominate at least two USSC justices that will affect the court for years.

Rudy has said he's in favor of strict constructionists...I'll tka my chances with him over any Democrat.

The abortion issue is settled by the courts, not the POTUS...so ignoring Rudy for his personal opinion about abortion is short-sighted.


40 posted on 01/16/2007 9:09:30 AM PST by Ethrane ("semper consolar")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Ethrane
Rudy has said he's in favor of strict constructionists...

....but he wants to eliminate the second amendment. (red flag alert)

42 posted on 01/16/2007 9:15:14 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: Ethrane

Dear Ethrane,

"Rudy has said he's in favor of strict constructionists."

Well, I guess it depends on what one thinks is in the Constitution that determines who one believes are strict constructionists. Mr. Giuliani believes that Roe was rightly decided, that there is a "right" to abortion in the Constitution. Mr. Giuliani obviously believes that significant gun control is constitutional (either that, or he believes that it is acceptable to pass unconstitutional laws).

This raises the question of just who would be acceptable to him as a Supreme Court nominee.

Folks here often quote from an interview with Alan Colmes where Mr. Giuliani praises Justice Roberts as an excellent choice for the Court. What folks often leave out is that in the same interview, Mr. Giuliani also praises RUTH BADER GINSBURG as a good choice for the Court.

Why shouldn't he? From his perspective, her support for Roe and other liberal shibboleths must seem to fall under the rubric of "strict constructionism." How could it be otherwise?

Sorry, I wouldn't trust Mr. Giuliani with Supreme Court and other judicial nominations anymore than I would trust Mrs. Clinton.

If Mr. Giuliani is nominated, I won't vote for him. If he is nominated, then no matter who wins the general election, the country will have elected a liberal Democrat.


sitetest


44 posted on 01/16/2007 9:22:21 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: Ethrane
Rudy has said he's in favor of strict constructionists . . .

And in his next breath he held up that avowed communist Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a fine Supreme Court justice, so I would tend to ignore this bit of political pandering on his part.

57 posted on 01/16/2007 9:54:00 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson