Replies

Listen, and I mean this politely:

Rudy Giuliani's idea of "Strict Constructionism" is RADICALLY different from our definition of strict Constructionism.

Let me break it down:

1.) Rudy calls himself a strict constructionist.

2.) Rudy has praised Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

3.) Rudy expressly believes that the Second Amendment COMPELS us to strictly regulate guns. He has stated that a "well-regulated militia" means strict gun regulation.

4.) He believes that there is a place for junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers in the law.

5.) He believes that Campaign Finance Reform is consistent with the First Amendment.

6.) He believes that Hate Crimes Legislation is consistent with the First Amendment.

7.) He has openly stated that he believes Roe vs. Wade is good law.

8.) He sees a place in law for the Practice of Partial Birth Abortion.

9.) He tried to get an extension as Mayor of NY, and even tried to have the law changed so that he could run again - a very Hugo Chavez-eques view of election laws.

10.) He sued the federal government over strict immigration laws, and acted in direct defiance of those laws to make NY an amnesty city.

11.) His record of appointing judges in NY is that of a far-leftist. He does not have total influence over all of the appointments; but it is entirely dishonest to say that it would have been impossible to get a single Conservative judge, or at least Consensus moderate judge, appointed in his entire tenure.

---His record, world view, legal view, and history all point to a radically different view of "strict constructionism" that most of us have. He cannot be trusted on the judges issue, because he is not credible. On the contrary, all factors considered indicate that we should be TERRIFIED of his judgment on said issue.

He cannot sell us on the "I'll appoint judges who'll protect you from myself" argument because he is not credible on the issue.