Posted on 02/23/2007 4:47:17 PM PST by areafiftyone
Good. Give us a list of his 100 judicial appointments.
You're the one obsessed with them.
Well, when you have a hardcore left Mayor, who represents none of the GOP's values, running around the country claiming he will appoint judges to protect us from hardcore left politicians like himself, you can't see the relevance of his prior judicial picks? The claim that is floating around FR, unchallenged with a single fact by the Giuliani supporters, is that only two Republican nominees out of a hundred have been identified. You don't find that relevent?
No.
I'm tired of being fed rumors that don't seem believable. I'd like to see that list of judicial appointments, so I'd know. Do you know where I can find it?
Well, you don't strike me as a stupid person, so if you're saying that you don't find that information relevent, I'll have to think you're being disingenuous, to be kind about it.
In any case, the original internet rumor was that none of his picks were Republicans. His supporters here have found a grand total of two, but that's it. No word on whether those were conservative Republicans or Giuliani "Republicans."
I bet we'll find out soon, though.
As a footnote, more of Romney's judicial picks were Dems than Republicans as well.
You've been complaining about this for weeks - yet upthread someone actually posted some additional names. If you were genuinely interested in Rudy's record of judicial appointments, as you claim, you'd stop for a bit and check those names out. But you didn't. Your next complaint came immediately after that list was posted. Additional information did not affect your snit at all. This tells me you have absolutely no interest in actually finding out anything about his judicial picks. None. Your total interest is continuing your anti-Rudy tantrum. So, carry on.
Now that you've slapped me down for somebody else's posts, go back and look again.
Yeah. It's me that's in a snit.
Btw, I asked you if you knew where I could find the list of judicial appointments that you said are public record, but not relevant. That's all I asked. Would try one more time to answer?
Yeah, well I'm getting there.
Yes, in fact it did, since it was completely unresponsive, as always. Eighteen names out of a hundred just doesn't cut it. Until someone proves otherwise, I'm going to go on believing that Giuliani picked 98% Dems and Independents for the bench. After all, he's an ideological Dem himself, so why would it be otherwise?
Define liberal. Wait, I'll define the term for you: someone who doesn't think the way you do. So much for a reasonable discourse...
Define it however you want. But a pro-abort, gay agenda driving, pro-illegal alien, gungrabber does fall within most people's criteria for "liberalism" in any case.
Oh, I forgot he would call it something else much like Howard Dean. Why do you feel the need to keep your head in the sand when it comes to America's Mayor and his support for the radical homosexual agenda.
No, I'm sure he's just like Mitt. "Pay no attention to my past actions. Just because I was a big supporter of gun control, Roe v. Wade, and gay rights in N. Y. doesn't mean I would actually govern based on those convictions." Keep telling yourself that, you may actually come to believe it.
A few quick google searches reveal that Rudy has all the conviction of John Kerry when it comes to taking a stand based on his convictions. I have pasted a few gems for you.
"Rudy Giuliani supports civil unions, signed a generous domestic partnership bill as mayor, and famously lived with two gay men."
"One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections. "
"After the Webster decision, abortion became a cutting-edge issue -- and Giuliani started out on the wrong side of the blade.
By the time Giuliani got it right on abortion, it may have been too late to win back the women voters offended by Giuliani's earlier pro-life issue.
Now that Giuliani has been consistently pro-choice for at least four years, the abortion issue should not present the same degree of trouble it did in 1989. "
Because in NYC the chances of finding a lot of conservative type lawyers up for judgeships based on merit are slim to almost none. Most boroughs are run by the Democrats completely. Rudy went after judges that would be tough on criminals. They were Democrats -- it is amazing when a Republican wins in NY period.
Judges nominated in NYC are chosen by the Mayor's committee based on merit. How many Republicans are going to make the top of a merit system in NYC? Ask yourself that.
Crime went down and criminals did the time, so Rudy must have done something right in his appointment of judges.
It is a red herring that some of here keep pounding home because NYC is not the same as being able to choose strict constructionist judges from across the Country.
Torie did the research on judicial appointments:
I did some googling about Guiliani judicial appointments. You stimulated me to do so. Congratulation.
The mayor of NYC appoints family and criminal court judges, and civil court judges on an interim basis, all of whom are lowly trial court judges, who don't set any legal precedents. They are the folks who go to second and third tier law schools, and then go to the local DA's office, and handle park and bark cases as they try to move up the judicial food chain.
Here is a post that per my research indeed accurately describes the process. The process is not partisan. The mayor does not select judges not recommended by the Mayor's Advisory Committee.
It is time to move on EV, and remind folks that Rudy does not hate gays, favors civil unions, did not favor concealed carry of guns in NYC, and is not in favor of making illegal all abortions, and keep reminding folks of that. THAT will cause a stampede to your favorite candidate, who at the moment remains behind the curtain, pending your dramatic unveiling, I am sure. Your jihad against Rudy over his NYC trial court appointments is shooting blanks. That salient of your offensive against Giuliani is a failure, or will be, because there is no "there," there.
And there you have it.
119 posted on 02/23/2007 10:19:11 PM CST by Torie (The real facts can sometimes be inconvenient things)
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.