Posted on 03/01/2007 8:24:02 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
Not only is it not disingenuous, it directly addressed the point.
Giuliani on Hannity: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT
So what I do say to conservatives because then you want to look at well okay what can we look to that is similar to the way you think. I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that. I guess the key is and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor so it's something I take very, very seriously. I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it.
Rudy contends he'll apoint conservative judges. Gives his reasons, those he admires, GWB's apointments which he supports, he'll take it seriously, but also asks us to look to the 100 judges he appointed as mayor.
That's what's happening.
The article in the thread only adds up to 56, not 100, so something is off there.
Could be 20 conservative, in a law and order sense, Dems there.
But it's a perfectly reasonable question to raise.
And since Rudy asked us to look to his record, the nature of the pool isn't an issue. However it was chosen, clearly Rudy feels he made conservative choices from it.
actually, his stance is pretty consistent if you look at it. where he talks about the 2nd amendment (one set of laws may not work in one part of the country like they would work in in others) the same principal would apply to abortion or the 10th amendment.
Dear SJackson,
Very good post. It really elucidates the important issues.
I believe part of the discrepancy is that there were 50 Dems, 6 Republicans, and something like 19 or 20 folks that weren't registered in either major party.
But that's from memory, so I could be in error there.
sitetest
sometimes it's better not to "jump the shark" and do some research. "ha"
If he apointed 56 Dems and 2/3 turned out to take a conservative position on crime, that's fine in my opinion. But I don't know that.
From my perspective, Rudy's position on gun ownership is an absolute loser. That's one issue that was probably addressed in the courts at this level. I'd be curious about those cases.
Dear SJackson,
"If he apointed 56 Dems and 2/3 turned out to take a conservative position on crime, that's fine in my opinion."
I understand your point, but disagree with it.
From family court judges come district court judges, then circuit court judges, and then federal judges and appellate judges.
Folks who are acceptable to us at lower levels, but would be unacceptable at higher levels, we shouldn't give a pass on their appointments to the lower levels, because it's often from that pool that appointments to higher levels are made.
sitetest
I'm starting to lean away from Rudy (if the press loves him....) but in his defense, were there more than 6 NYC Republicans willing to serve as judges?
He doesn't ask us to look to the 100 judges that he appointed as Mayor of NYC as proof that he will appoint conservative judges as president; rather, he simply mentions that fact that he appointed 100 judges to emphasize the point that he takes the appointment of judges seriously.
The problem with your reasoning (and the reasoning of others) is that you are trying to equate judges appointed to the NYC Criminal and Family Court with judges appointd to the Supreme Court of the United States and the various Federal Courts at the Circuit and District Court level. While the appointment of judges at all levels is an improtant job, you are equating apples and acorns because judges at the NYC criminal/family court level don't have the time, inclination, or power to exercise the kind of political jurisprudence that is highly relevant when deciding the constitutional questions in the Federal Courts.
IF people in Oklahoma don't want to allow abortion's to be performed in their state that is their choice as well.
It works both ways.
but, would you want to live in a major city that had NO gun control laws what so ever, especially in a low income "urban area" ?
I encourage law abiding people to arm themselves if for no other reason than the 2nd Amendment guarantees us that right without qualification. But please don't propaganize that NYC would be a safer city if more of us carried firearms. NYC is already by far the safest big city in America, and that includes the big cities located in gun-loving Red States like Dallas, Phoenix, Denver, Tulsa, Jacksonville, Mobile, Charlotte, etc. Whether NYC is safer because of or in spite of its strict gun laws is open to debate. But the fact remains that NYC has the lowest violent crime rate of any big city in America.
Maybe so but it wouldn't be because of gun control.
Rotten fruit in Rudolph's past? Heck, he IS a rotten fruit.
When Giuliani took office in 1994, he inherited a system of judicial appointments created by one of his predecessors, Ed Koch, and designed to insulate the courts from political influence. Under the system, the mayor appoints members of an independent panel. Aspiring judges apply to the panel, which recommends three candidates for each vacancy. The mayor chooses among the three.
The commission sends up three Democrats, the mayor has to choose one, guess what...he appoints a Democrat. Looks like he didn't have a completely free hand at judicial appointments.
But how many of them want to be judges? Long hours, bad pay etc. Conservative lawyers are more likely to care about making money. Its the liberal ones who want to change the world.
I think it's meant to support his contension that he'd appoint conservative judges.
If you're saying it's just to prove he can appoint a judge, OK.
That he takes the appointments seriously, that brings us right back to what kind of judges he appointed.
Which I suspect on a municipal level will be difficult to assess.
Rudy Giuliani video on YouTube: "I would like to run on the Democratic line "
YouTube ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793570/posts
Posted on 03/01/2007 2:53:19 PM PST by Kevmo
usually you can get a firearm it's just a bit harder, and I agree, a lot more difficult than it should be for an honest person looking for personal protection or for private use. But, have NO law isn't the answer either.
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.