[Spiff]

The bottom line is this: Rudy will appoint strict constructionist judges

Not according to his own record on appointing judges. He can SAY whatever he wants now, but he's just trying to sell himself to gullible Republicans. A tiger does not change his stripes and he vowed multiple times in 2000 that he was firm in his pro-abortion - even partial birth aborton - convictions.

[Mia T]

The bottom line is this: Rudy will appoint strict constructionist judges--Mia T

Not according to his own record on appointing judges. He can SAY whatever he wants now, but he's just trying to sell himself to gullible Republicans. A tiger does not change his stripes and he vowed multiple times in 2000 that he was... pro-abortion....--Spiff

He has not changed his position. He says he is personally against abortion but that he believes it is the woman's decision. But his personal position is not relevant. What is relevant is his position on the constitutional issue of judges legislating from the bench. And there he is on the side of the Constitution, our liberties and all babies.

If you had done your homework, (thank you PhiKapMom, nopardons) you would have discovered that when Giuliani appointed judges in New York City, his hands were tied.

Since 1978, merit selection has been used to select judges of New York City's criminal and family courts and to fill mid-term vacancies on the city's civil court.

Established by executive order, the mayor's advisory committee on the judiciary evaluates applicants and nominates highly qualified candidates. The mayor may not appoint a judge who has not been nominated by the committee. All based on merit selection and all come from an advisory committee which means in liberal NY the chances of finding a conservative judge based on merit would be nil to non-existent.

Conversely, consider Giuliani's statement made at a recent visit with the South Carolina GOP Executive Committee when an audience member pressed him for his position on judges:

'On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I'm a lawyer. I've argued cases in the Supreme Court. I've argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that's part of our freedom and when that's taken away from you that's terrible.'