Replies

If he's not confused, then he does believe in ending rights.

Could that explain his 2d amendment stance?

What could be his criteria for ending a right?

(a) political expedience (b) polling of ignorant respondents (c) his likes and dislikes

And one other thing: his claim to fame is "mayor." Mayor???

At least governors have had to deal with legislatures.

If he's not confused, then he does believe in ending rights.

Actually, you can get dizzy just trying to figure out his real position. Well, assuming he has a coherent one.

Notice his use of the word 'constructionist' judges instead of 'originalists'. For conservatives, we're after the originalist, not the constructionist or even the vague 'strict constructionist'. Rudy thinks that because much of the base heard the constructionist term during the Miers flap, that he can slide past us on this. But he can't if we pin him down on exactly what he means. This is why Mark Levin, another veteran of the Reagan DoJ and a person who backed Roberts and Alito to the hilt, has expressed so many reservations about him.

And one other thing: his claim to fame is "mayor." Mayor??? At least governors have had to deal with legislatures.

Notice that he is essentially in his position by accident. He would not and could not be a nominee if it were not for the accident of the terrorists hitting NYC on 9/11. Like Hillary getting the nomination because she is the Wife Of Clinton, Rudy's standing is another accident of history. And history shows us that such leaders generally have a poor record once given power.