Dear LtdGovt,
"'Thus, for him, strict constructionism likely includes a constitutional right to abortion.'
"I doubt it."
I doubt that he doesn't think this.
I've read his speeches "celebrating" the anniversaries of Roe. Here's one excerpt from the 25th anniversary "celebration."
"Twenty five years after the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, its impact is as significant as ever," Mayor Giuliani said. "This decision has precluded government from interfering with a woman’s Constitutional rights. "
Here, he doesn't say that the Court established a right, but rather that Roe prevents government from interfering with the right. A constitutional right.
If Roe merely prevents from interference with the right, rather than creates the right, then the right pre-existed Roe.
Thus, Roe merely discovers the right, not creates the legal fiction of a right.
Mr. Giuliani believes that abortion IS a constitutional right, rather than believes that the current construction of the Constitution names something called a constitutional right to abortion.
Thus, for him, strict construction means a constitutional right to abortion.
One must argue against what he's actually said to say otherwise.
"So did 96 Senators, many of them Republicans. Are you saying that all of them are disqualified because of that? Ginsburg might have been a good choice for CLINTON, but she wasn't a strict constructionist."
I understand what you're saying, and I believe that out of context, that's a reasonable interpretation of the interview where he said kind things about Mrs. Ginsburg.
However, in light of the fact that what he thinks is good constitutional law (and by the way, George Will actually quotes him in 2000 as saying that Roe is good constitutional law), I think it's even more reasonable to say that he was endorsing Mrs. Ginsburg as someone who fell within the bounds of a good appointment to the Supreme Court.
That's not the same as acceding to the not totally unreasonable nomination of a sitting president.
sitetest