Posted on 03/01/2007 8:24:02 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
Actually, as of 2002-present, the mayor only appoints a minority of the advisory committee (9 of 19). Do you have information indicating that, during Giuliani's day, the mayor appointed all (or even most) of the committee?
See! There is hope for you yet!
No, but I understand they serve 2 year terms and he was mayor for 8, so he had some input, even if 9 of 19. I suppose the test would be the composition of the approved pool, and how Rudy made his apointments to the panel, but it's not worth the time to me to research it.
he is actually proud of his judges overall. He wasn't looking for (R)'s he was looking for people to help him clean up the city and he did one hell of a good job.
Rudy is very smart you need to give the man some credit and put that conversation into context, Rudy was trying to get John Roberts confirmed to the Supreme Court. That makes Rudy a good guy, NOT a bad guy. IF he has to say off the ball remarks to get the goal I don't care, thats what politicians are paid to do.
Dear pogo101,
"2) to have pursued this thread/issue aggressively, BUT ONLY UNTIL someone else pointed out that NYC's mayor has relatively little say over whom (as local, not state) judges he can pick."
But that's not really true at all.
New York's mayor gets to directly appoint nearly HALF of the commission that recommends judges. These commission members are HIS POLITICAL CREATURES. If he can't get these nine folks to automatically accept any reasonable candidate he might intimate he'd like to be nominated, then he's a very poor politician.
If these commission members can't persuade one other member of the commission to go along with more candidates acceptable to the mayor, then they're incompetent, and the mayor ought to replace them.
In contrast, federally, the president doesn't get to directly anyone in the Senate. Each one of these folks, whether of his party or another party, has their own personal and political agenda. They don't directly owe their political office to the president.
Yet, federally, that's what a president must deal with.
As well, as I read it, New York's mayor can reject the candidates presented to him by the commission, and ask for other nominations.
If Mr. Giuliani had wanted other, more conservative, more Republican folks for these positions, starting with a rock-solid base of nine out 19 votes, he could have instructed his members to have done what they could, persuade, make deals, etc., to come up with a better mix of potential judges.
But that apparently wasn't important to Mr. Giuliani, to get more conservative, more Republican judges. He got the judges that he wanted.
Seeing what Mr. Giuliani did with judges while mayor, I shudder to think what he would do as president, where arguably, he'd have even less power.
sitetest
Look: I don't know that I would want to be judged by 18-year old campaign literature (most of which is never seen by the candidate), or by other people quoting me or interpreting what I said, second-hand. People have been known to change their views and/or moderate their opinions. I just want to hear the guy's unfiltered, current opinions, because after what he did for New York City before, during, and after 9/11, I think he deserves a fair hearing from conservatives. If he's not our guy, so be it.
Essentially this is a poliltical issue. As I noted before it would be interesting to see the makeup of the commission and candidate pool. Obviously he could appoint all Rs to the comission and change the makeup, but I'm sure it would have entailed a political battle. Then again, local judiciary might not have been a battle he chose to fight. The apointments to the comission would be interesting to know.
I stand corrected. You absolutely right.
Can you believe the number of conservative or allegedly conservatives considering supporting Giuliani? It's hard to believe there is much hope for conservatism making any gains when so there are so many dumb and deluded conservatives wanting to believe a liberal Republican will advance their cause.
Dear SJackson,
"Obviously he could appoint all Rs to the comission and change the makeup, but I'm sure it would have entailed a political battle."
That's fine. I understand.
But it's Mr. Giuliani who has proudly pointed to his record of judicial appointments, and from my perspective, it seems that he was either quite happy with what he got (ugh!) or he didn't want to fight to get folks he really wanted.
I have no basis to believe he would act differently as president. In that Mr. Giuliani is quite liberal on any number of issues, and believes things about the Constitution that most conservatives don't, it seems to me that he would likely rather nominate someone like Mrs. Ginsburg, and get very little fight about it, as opposed to nominating someone like Mr. Roberts, and having to fight about it.
His prior record shows that the former course is more likely, regardless of what he's telling us now.
sitetest
And the important thing to remember is that the burden of proof is on the Giuliani campaign and his supporters to demonstrate that Giuliani's record of nominating judges is consistant with his (hollow) CampaignSpeak(tm) statements providing (fake) assurances that he'll nominate the kind of judges that the conservative base of the Republican party demands.
GOOD! IF we could get Roe overturned maybe we could actually get back to what he wants, "States Rights"
You're right. I admit I might not be overly concerned about municipal judgeship apointments. If he appointed competent jurists, particulary tough on crime, I don't think party matters much at that level.
But as you point out, he brought it up so he has the obligation to demonstrate the relevancy. Same standard a Kerry and his "reporting for duty" stunt.
Dear SJackson,
"I admit I might not be overly concerned about municipal judgeship apointments."
Strictly in their own context, I'm not overwhelmed with concern, either.
However, I'll say this. As I get older, I get less tolerant about electing/appointing/nominating/otherwise placing the "wrong" folks to any level of office at all.
Here's why: folks gotta start somewhere.
So, my senior US Senator is Barbara Mikulski (YIKES!!). She got her start on the Baltimore City Council, back when the voters of Baltimore weren't quite as nutty liberal as they are today. Even today, Baltimore still has a significant Catholic minority. Mrs. Pelosi wasn't the exception for Baltimore City. A lot of voters back then were Democrats, but weren't pro-abort. That's still the case even today, but even more so a few decades ago.
But Ms. Mikulski was pro-abort. Always was. Always will be. This concerned a lot of Catholic Democrats.
But what difference did it make, folks would say. She's sitting on the City Council! But then, she got elected to higher office - the US House, and then to the US Senate.
Now she gets to vote on judicial nominees for the entire United States, including for the Supreme Court.
If folks had taken those "irrelevant" but highly-negative political stances of hers more seriously back in the days when she was running for City Council, maybe she wouldn't be in the US Senate now.
The thing is - the Dems know this. That's why NARAL will oppose a pro-lifer running for dog catcher. It seems obsessive.
But it works.
Unfortunately, we're not as clever or ruthless.
sitetest
I see. Previously you said the mayor appoints the members; now you appear to be asserting that the fact that it's only 9 of 19 doesn't change anything, or that the difference between the two scenarios, which I find rather significant, is insignificant to you. Just getting a handle on your analysis.
You are being disingenuous. The members of the Mayor's Advisory Committee are not selected by the Mayor. They are nominated by the political bosses at the local level in the various election districts that dot NYC. (My recollection is that there is a person on the Advisory Committee from each State Assembly District in NYC.) Yes, Rudy could have rejected every judicial nominee from the Democratic Party, but then there is REALITY. The Advisory Committee would have simply nominated another Democrat if only because NYC is something like 9 to 1 Dems to Pubs. In the mean time, the judical seat would have remained empty while the bosses play politics, which would have resulted in an even larger backlog of cases in the largest criminal and family court system in the Country.
Also, at this level of justice, judicial philosphy is irrelevant because these judges are not deciding cases that involve deep Constitutional questions or the interpretation of complicated statutes and regulations. Their primary job is to keep the system moving and that means criminal arraignments, bail hearings, plea bargains, orders of protection, and on rare occassions, listening to testimony and making evidentary determinations. No one with even slightest knowlege of the NYC justice system even cares whether a judge at this level is the next Antonio Scalia or the reincarnation of William O. Douglas because these judges don't have the time or power to make that kind of a difference.
It's my understanding he appoints some members, another poster stated 9 or 19, it could be 8 or could be all, for two year terms.
They're not two different scenarios, they're two different actions.
On the one hand I don't consider the political party of municipal apointments particularly important if they're tough on crime. But Rudy brought the topic up, so it's relevant. Hopefully someone will post his nominations to the commission. 8 years as mayor, 2 year terms, even if he gets 9 slots that's several dozen apointments.
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.