It shows Rudy in all his liberal leftwing glory. LOL
Posted on 03/06/2007 10:53:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 03/06/2007 11:02:15 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Rudy Giuliani on Judge John Roberts
~snip~
COLMES: Now, on abortion — now, you are pro-choice, right?
GIULIANI: Yes.
COLMES: You're a pro-choice Republican.
GIULIANI: I am.
COLMES: There's some questions to whether, you know, Roe vs. Wade (search). He made one statement as solicitor general and deputy solicitor general and saying that it should be overturned, Roe v. Wade. None of — go ahead.
GIULIANI: Actually, he made that statement arguing a case before the court, in which that was the position of his client. So you can't...
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: And then he said it's established law when he was up for confirmation in 2003. How do we glean from that? And how do we read the tea leaves in this?
GIULIANI: You don't. What you glean from that is you listen to the argument before the court. You listen to his colleagues and he'll make a decision.
And like any Supreme Court justice, he'll be very much influenced by precedent, but if he thinks that something is said to him or there's some argument that appeals to his intellect, his common sense, his background, I mean, the Supreme Court usually sticks with precedence. And sometimes they overturn them.
COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade -- You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...
GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.
I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her. I expect, and listening to Senator Nelson, I expect that John Roberts will get support from a lot of Democrats.
COLMES: Now, he is coming under fire from some Democrats for claiming — they're claiming he is a partisan, that he had a behind-the-scenes role in advising the Florida attorney general during the 2000 election fight, that he gave money to the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign...
GIULIANI: He's a Republican.
COLMES: ... made the maximum. Is that...
GIULIANI: Who do you think the president's going to appoint?
COLMES: All right, but in other words...
GIULIANI: How many Republicans did President Clinton appoint?
COLMES: Should it be partisan like that?
GIULIANI: He isn't that partisan. He's a Republican who believes in the Republican Party and no more partisan than lots of people who get appointed to the United States Supreme Court and turn out to be excellent justices.
COLMES: So it's not an issue if you've donated ...
(CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: Earl Warren was the governor of a state. He was the Republican-elected governor of a state and...
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: ... donated money to the guy whose nominated you, if you've given him money, money to his campaign, if you've worked to get him elected, behind the scenes advising the attorney general?
GIULIANI: Sure. That's be exactly the kind of person you'd think that you'd want to appoint, somebody who shares kind of your general outlook, but hasn't indicated and hasn't really predetermined most of the cases that are going to be determined by the court.
Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them. It's sort of an extraordinary thing to ask of President Bush. Nobody asked it of President Clinton.
President Clinton appointed people that basically agreed with his political philosophy, which is left of center. Of course, President Bush is going to appoint people that basically agree with his political philosophy. And then what we found out about the Supreme
~snip~
It shows Rudy in all his liberal leftwing glory. LOL
Excellent catch. We've been hearing from Rudy's surrogates for some weeks now how he's going to appoint conservative justices. We now have Rudy on record stating that this is unlikely. The few excuses that conservatives could have offered for supporting his candidacy have now throughly been debunked.
It's not just naive, it's just plain stupid. It's just crazy to assume that bilge that the JulieAnnie Apologists are trying to peddle.
Wow! That is great stuff! You've outdone yourself.
You are AWESOME!
Thanks, but everything is old and out of context. What matters most is what rudy says now when he's trying to win the GOP nomination, not what he's said and done for years.
;)
That picture (especially with the top quote) needs to be placed on EVERY SINGLE PRO-RUDY THREAD. That picture should at least stop the totally idiotic comments from the Rudy-Apologists that somehow, someway, for some unknown reasons, Rudy will appoint conservative judges.
Great job!
I stole a much applicable Rudyism.
"No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing."
ROTFLMSO
Great post.
"Well, as the Rudyites are fond of saying, "but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but". These people aren't interested in facts, just fantasy."
lol
I'm afraid some people will just throw conservatism away, because Rudy has charisma.
Did you say the same thing back in 2004 when republicans and the swift boat vets used John Kerry's quotes from his Vietnam days against him?
His quotes are completely relevent, and none of really that old. 1996 was not that long ago. And this was from 2005.
BTTT
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.