Replies

I think as a lawyer who went after the mob, Rudy respects the law. He's said that he will appoint strict constructionists and that Alito and Roberts are his dream judges.

It's a crapshoot; with Reagan we got 2 crummy Supreme Court judges.

It's a crapshoot; with Reagan we got 2 crummy Supreme Court judges.

O'Connor was clearly a case of making a priority of nominating a woman. She had no business on the Court -- there were far better candidates -- but it was "stylish".

Kennedy was nominated because of the defeat of Bork and the discovery that Ginsberg was a pot-smoker. He was considered at the time to be a weak choice and too moderate, but Reagan was worn out after Iran-Contra and the Bork defeat.

GWB showed how it is done, although the Miers pick was another disastrous attempt to be "stylish". Fortunately, no harm was done.

Just to be clear, I'm not against women in high places who are clearly qualified. For example, I thought more highly of Maggie Thatcher than Reagan.

I think as a lawyer who went after the mob, Rudy respects the law. He's said that he will appoint strict constructionists and that Alito and Roberts are his dream judges.

I SO want to trust Rudy on that, I really do. And maybe, at some point, that assurance will have to be good enough for me. You'll forgive me, however, if I'm still a little skeptical.

It's a crapshoot; with Reagan we got 2 crummy Supreme Court judges.

True enough - but there is a clear difference between who Reagan WANTED, and who he settled for. Even if we can take Rudy at face value as to who he WANTS - well, given his social positions, his "compromise" picks would likely be far left of Reagan's.

The paradox is that with a Republican Congress, I would be more willing to risk Rudy as POTUS, given his positive qualities. However, Rudy is probably more attractive to a country that would elect a Democrat Congress - which is a scenario that doesn't appeal to me. But don't worry, I'm trying to keep an open mind...Rudy still has a chance to convince me.