Posted on 02/15/2007 3:20:42 PM PST by MittFan08
Ted Olson is a friend of Rudy and he endorses him and said this:
From the article at The Spectator:
"I've known him for 26 years and we've talked about this many times," Olson said. "He feels very strongly that people like Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, are the type of people that he would put on the court…I'm quite convinced that this is a genuine viewpoint that he has."
One of the best articles I've read about Rudy, very detailed:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26604
Republican primary voters should rally around the GOP field's most accomplished supply-sider, the all-but-announced Rudolph W. Giuliani. Having sliced taxes and slashed Gotham's government, New York's former mayor is the leading fiscal conservative among 2008's GOP presidential contenders.
Before Giuliani's January 1, 1994 inauguration, New York's economy was on a stretcher. Amid soaring unemployment, 235 jobs vanished daily. Financier Felix Rohatyn complained: "Virtually all human activities are taxed to the hilt." Punitive taxes helped fuel a $2.3 billion deficit.
Mayor-elect Giuliani sounded Reaganesque when he announced he would "reduce the size and cost of city government" to balance the budget. In his first State of the City address, he said: "We're going to cut taxes to attract jobs so our people can work."
Rudy spent 8 years keeping those promises.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782806/posts
It's not my hogwash. It's just about every respectable Judge going back 200 years. It was a unanimous court with John Marshall and Joseph Story that said the 1st 8 amendments(including #2) only apply to the federal govt, as did countless other legal treatises and writers, including James Madison. But maybe Madison and Marshall and Story were all liberal activists.
So to say the 2nd amendment only apoplies to the federal govt is standard legal practice. No one really disputes it. The question is whether the 14th amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause incorporated it against state action. That argument has been going on for 150 years and there's plausible arguments on both sides. No one's really been able to prevail one way or the other. I tend to think that the evidence does support that it was intended and understood to bind the states. But even with that, most 2nd amendment scholars will concede that it does not preclude certain regulations(see Barnett, Halbrook, Kopel, Lott etc...). It's not some blanket guarantee, at least against the states.
As for the other amendments, yes even freedom of speech and religion is not some absolute guarantee, either. You can't smoke crack in the name of religion and hope that the Constitution covers you. You can take the Hugo Black "no law" absolutist view, but even Black didn't think that Freedom of Speech covered flag burning, for example, or guaranteed students the right to protest the Vietnam War(see Tinker v Des Moines) or gave a guy the right to burn his draft card or wear obscenity on his jacket in a courthouse(see Cohen v Caifornia). It's not wow, it's only what the Constitution says and how its been interpreted going back 200 years by just about everyone that's ever served on the Supreme Court.
There are plenty of similar cases in the religion area(see US v Reynolds to Employment v Smith)for more than 100 years that establish that regulations are not forbidden.
Regulations are different from Restrictions. It's one thing to say, you can't do something entirely vs saying you can do it under certain conditions.
I don't think there's 1 Justice on the SC today who would approve of an unfettered 2nd amendment that says you can have whatever "arms" you want and there's nothing any govt can do about it. Even the pro gun 5th circuit case stated that there's a huge difference between outright forbidding someone's use of arms and regulating it under certain circumstnces.
The most staunch conservative reporter thinks Rudy is terrific and outlines his reason why he has been good for the GOP:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781268/posts
In a very interesting City Journal article, Steven Malanga argues that "Yes, Rudy Guiliani Is a Conservative/And an electable one at that."
Malanga makes a strong case for Rudy as a Reagan-style conservative. After recounting Giuliani's record as mayor of New York City, in which, as Malanga establishes firmly, Rudy supported free markets and individual responsibility, as exemplified vividly in his tax cuts , welfare reform success, "zero tolerance" crimefighting, and firm rejection of racial politics.
As Malanga notes, Giuliani did this in what was one of the most leftist cities in the US.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1774783/posts
So when Arafat was in town for a U.N. conference and showed up uninvited to a concert at the Lincoln Center's Avery Fisher Hall, the mayor knew exactly what to do. He kicked him out.
The incident caused an uproar. Former mayor Ed Koch declared that "Giuliani has behavioral problems," and the Clinton administration was angered at Giuliani's boldness. Giuliani, however, was not swayed. "My only regret," he told an aide, "was that I didn't throw him out myself." Actions like this earned Giuliani the ire of Democrats everywhere in the '90s.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19980
The Hoover Institute, at which Reagan is an Honorary Fellow, thinks Rudy has been good for the GOP.
Working on a book about the Republican Party, last year Hoover fellow Peter Robinson spent some time with Rudolph Giuliani. Although Giuliani is no longer running for the Senate, Robinson argues that Giuliani’s accomplishments as mayor of New York City set an example for Republican candidates just the same. A portrait of a brilliant politician—and a great public servant.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3491481.html
Of course Giullianni will bypass McCain. McCain is an @$@# I can't say it but he isn't worth the time getting upset over.
Indeed, in one recent poll, majorities of Republicans who were informed of Giuliani’s views on social issues said that they were either minor issues or no issues at all; only 16% said that they wouldn't vote for him after being informed of these views.
In the online GOP Bloggers poll, Giuliani is consistently one of the few candidates to end up with a net positive acceptability rating. These internet denizens are well-informed, and overwhelmingly self-describe as conservative (78% self-describe as 7 or higher on a 10-scale of conservatism). If these people can support Rudy, anyone can.
Human Events, Is Giuliani the Republican Peyton Manning,
2/6/07
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780060/posts
I think (and hope) it might be Haley Barbour. He was quoted in my local paper this week with an emphatic "no" when asked about running for the presidency or the senate. He gave a non-answer when asked about the veep slot.
Reagan appointed Rudy as his #3 man at Department of Justice.
Rudy was pleased to win the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award.
At the Reagan Library Gift Shop, all but 3 of the books sold under the "Ronald Reagan Book" section are about Reagan himself or presidential modes of transportation.
Rudy Giuliani's book Leadership is one of those 3 books.
The other 2 are written by Reagan's son and McCaslin.
I don't know. President Bush said he'd sign the assault weapons ban if it passed Congress. Is he unacceptable? He won twice with huge conservative support both times.
Given the current Congress, I don't think any significant gun control laws will be passed. If they were, it would depend on what they were but I wouldn't automatically assume Rudy would sign it.
I don't think he'd be any worse than anybody else who might be in the WH.
He's a smart politician and if the base and the lobbyists(NRA) and a bunch of supporters in his own party are that opposed to a certain bill, I don't think he'd go against all of them and sign it. If a given bill has strong bipartisan support and no real significant opposition, he probably would sign it.
But as I said, gun control has largely disappeared from the federal agenda. The dems won't bring it up, and I doubt Rudy would make it a priority or even an issue. I think he's basically fine with the status quo on guns and wouldn't be that much different from the current administartion when it comes to guns.
Of course, I could be wrong, but that's just my feeling on it. If guns were a red line issue to me, I can see why Rudy wouldn't exactly be a strong choice, but I think fears of him taking away everyone's guns are overstated.
"Given the current Congress, I don't think any significant gun control laws will be passed."
Combine the political power of the NRA with the fact that 60 votes in the Senate are needed to pass anything and I agree with you. I don't recall hearing about gun control being on the Dems' agenda.
One thing is for certain: we don't want no stinkin Democrat appointing the next SC Justices. That always helps me to hold my nose if necessary.
We got a winner here.
OK, fine, you've got lots and lots of company. I believe that because I have been following the talkshow hosts and the other pundits. But this is what FreeRepublic stands for, right here:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.Since you and your bandwagonload of Rudy Groupies do not share that outlook, why do you inflict this stuff on all the rest of the FReepers???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.