Dear LtdGovt,
"I could refer to abortion as a woman's constitutional right."
Now your moving the goal posts.
You said he hadn't called abortion a constitutional right.
I insisted he did. You now seem to be giving an excuse of WHY he did, no longer falsely insisting that he didn't.
However, folks who believe that Roe should go generally talk about Roe granting a false constitutional right. On the other hand, Mr. Giuliani has often spoken in praise of a constitutional right to abortion.
Thus, for him, strict constructionism likely includes a constitutional right to abortion.
As for praising Justices Scalia, et. al., that's nice. He also said that Mrs. Ginsburg was a good choice for the Court.
I think what he's telling us is that he's willing not to look at someone's likely jurisprudence on the question of abortion. Nonetheless, in that he believes that abortion is a constitutional right, as well as severe and strict gun control, as well as the idea that the government may mess around with social structures (the family) that precede it chronologically and ontologically, I don't see that someone like Mrs. Ginsburg would fall outside his circle of folks who would make acceptable justices.
As well, you're asking me to give him the (very, very huge) benefit of the doubt. I'm not very happy with how he has had his surrogates present his case. At times, it's seemed extremely intellectually dishonest to me (like when Deroy Murdock wrote that we social conservatives should be GRATEFUL for Mr. Giuliani - barf). At other times, he's been condescending as the day is long (like when basically telling us through surrogates that he doesn't need social conservatives).
I no longer repose any trust in him. I no longer think him a man of honor. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him, at least not to do things that he isn't otherwise inclined to do. He's a politician, like any other, and worse than many.
sitetest
"Now your" = "Now you're"