Giuliani 'not confident' war will turn around

CNN ^ | 2/14/07

[madprof98]

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former New York mayor and 2008 presidential contender Rudolph Giuliani said Wednesday he is not sure the tide will turn in the war in Iraq . . .

"I'm not confident it's all going to turn around," Giuliani told CNN's "Larry King Live." "Who knows that? I mean, you never know that in the middle of the war.

"I'm confident that we have to try to make a turnaround, and we just can't walk out, and that it is critical to us that things get to the point in Iraq that we have some degree of stability and not the way they are now," Giuliani continued. "Because if we leave it the way it is now and we run out, then we're going to face further difficulties in the future."

[snip]

King pointed out that Giuliani has said that if he won the presidency he would appoint judges who . . . might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade . . .

"I don't know that," Giuliani replied. "You don't know that."

"I am pro-choice, yes," he said. "But I'm also, as you know, always have been, against abortion . . .

"But I believe a woman has a right to choose, and you can't have criminal penalties. ... I think that would be wrong.

"I would select judges who try to interpret the Constitution rather than invent it," he said.

[snip]

"Gays should be protected. ... But the way I'm portrayed by my opponents -- and I guess to drive people away from me -- is that I'm in favor of gay marriage. I am not."

However, Giuliani said he does favor domestic-partnership laws for gay and lesbian couples.

And while he favors gun control, "I understand the Second Amendment," he said.

[dynachrome]

Ha, was just about to ping ya to this. Larrrrrry will ask the tough questions, I bet!

[jwalsh07]

Judges also make law, which is what hundreds of years of common law is largely about.

Wow, who knew? Is there any limit to the powers of the judiciary in America?

[P-40]

And while he favors gun control, "I understand the Second Amendment," he said.

He still hasn't got the 2nd Amendment figured out yet. Should I assume he has got the 1st down but has yet to start on the 3rd?

[NapkinUser]

Larrrrrry will ask the tough questions, I bet!

"So Rudy, tell me and my viewers what your favorite color is."

"Pink Larry."

[alicewonders]

I went to the CNN site - that is the original headline.

[rbookward]

He is referring to appellate judges here, who don't do trials, but rather decide matters of law. Towards that end, they decide what the law says. So yes, judges interpret what the law means.

Judges also make law, which is what hundreds of years of common law is largely about.

Got it. Thanks!

Am I right in assuming that even appellate judges can only interpret laws applicable to the cases brought before them? For example, SCOTUS can't just overrule Rove v. Wade, they have to wait until an appropriate case comes in.

On second thought, I don't want to highjack the thread. I'll just use these Internet tube-thingies to look at WikiPedia and see what I can find. Thanks again.

[HitmanLV]

Am I right in assuming that even appellate judges can only interpret laws applicable to the cases brought before them? For example, SCOTUS can't just overrule Rove v. Wade, they have to wait until an appropriate case comes in.

Yes, that's right. You get it! ;-)

[Emmett McCarthy]

Nobody can expect an old coot like Larry King to actually stay up until 10 p.m. He has the "Early Bird Special" dinner at 4 and his young wife gets him tucked in by 7. Then she goes out and leaves him with a sitter.

[familyop]

"'I'm not confident it's all going to turn around,' Giuliani told CNN's 'Larry King Live.' 'Who knows that? I mean, you never know that in the middle of the war."

In US military doctrine, that consideration (losing a war) is written to be "unthinkable." It is unthinkable for any commander, NCO or commander-in-chief. War is not the realm of people who only have police-related experiences. It is the business of soldiers, sailors and pilots.

And after that comment, Gooeyani waffled. That's a very bad sign.

[oceanview]

its Roe versus Wade, please don't bring Karl Rove into this one too!

[Brilliant]

Neither am I though. All we can do is our best, and hope for the best.

[rbookward]

Yes, that's right. You get it! ;-)

Close enough for government work, anyway.

Say, how does a lawyer-type end up being a hit-man in Las Vegas?!

Just kidding! Have a good night!

[oceanview]

neither does the NRA. you notice they aren't too keen about taking the states into federal court to test the applicability of a blanket 2A right as it applies to the states. why is that?

[Ramius]

Wow. Breathtaking argument you got there.

[P-40]

why is that?

Because they'd win.

[alicewonders]

In US military doctrine, that consideration (losing a war) is written to be "unthinkable."

Thank you. I've never heard President Bush speak that way about the war. He's always been sure of a positive ending and has conveyed that to the American people. I would hate to be serving in Iraq and hear my Commander in Chief say he wasn't sure of a victory. That would be totally demoralizing, I would think.

[HitmanLV]

My current work is a lot more fulfilling and moral than a career in law! ;-)

[rbookward]

> its Roe versus Wade, please don't bring Karl Rove into this one too!

Hey! Read the tag line! (Sometimes my typos are better than what I intended to write!)

[SIDENET]

This is the best we can do?

If it is, we're screwed.

[Beagle8U]

"neither does the NRA. you notice they aren't too keen about taking the states into federal court to test the applicability of a blanket 2A right as it applies to the states. why is that?"

Because they know we need a couple more pro-gun judges on the bench. Then they will.

Another reason we need a solid conservative pro-gun POTUS.