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~
The enemies of the First Amendment are realizing McCain's dead, and are moving towards running Johnnie-boy's bosom buddy, Fred Thompson.
Definitely. To see it otherwise really is delusional.
Rudy SAID he would appoint SC Justices like Roberts and Scalia
I'm convinced!
YES! The SC Justices he would appoint would be human, breathe oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide and have been born since 1900.
JUST LIKE Roberts and Scalia.
Yes! Vote early and often for Rudy!
I'm convinced!
Cheers!
And, in addition to all that, Rudy SUCKS!
works both ways
Bush43`s two appointments to the SCOTUS are in the early stages of their tenure. What happens 10-20 years down the road is an unknown factor at this time. No one can see into the future. So far, so good.
Bush43 has always been an open borders/amnesty. He supports liberal immigration reform as spelled out in Senate bill S2611. Bush, Giuliani and McCain all want comprehensive immigration reform. They all opposed House bill HR 4437 when it passed the GOP House vote in Dec2005.
We who? You a fugitive from DU?
Nice basic summary. I agree.
THAT pic BEAUTIFULLY and SIMPLY says it all.
I trust my own 'lying eyes' to what others may tell me, pure as driven snow though their hearts may be.
I view Rudy's moral trajectory to date and have to trust my own discernment over Rudy's campaign statements and Ted Olson's honest beliefs. What is being postulated about Rudy is antithetical to Rudy's long-term pro-NARAL stance and public endorsement.
The best indicator of future performance is past performance. I do not believe that Rudy's past performance will suddenly be countermanded.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump:
Life is like a tracer bullet--one can generally tell where it's going by the moral trajectory thus far.
Bush's judges are fine by me.
He assumes that SC judges are "very much influenced by precedent", and "should be a very good lawyer". Well, color me unimpressed. No where in his last answers is any mention of the constitution. He sounds like a "stare decisis" kind of guy, and we already have enough of those.
We need judges associated with an originalist or at a minimum a strict constructionist judicial philosophy. I assume if he means to appoint a nominee to SCOTUS that agrees with his political philosophy we are likely to see another O'Conner, or even worse another Souter type of judge on the bench. Yuk! Sounds like shades of the Harriet Meiers failed nomination might return in spades.
LOL!!!
Good catch. ..and it's really just common sense that Rudy will surround himself with people who think likewise.. just maybe 'conservatives' that welcomed and applauded Rudy at CPAC should be more ashamed at that than what Coulter said.
Welcome newbie. Another Rudybot signs on.
Cherry picking means you take someone's statement out of context...this is an entire eye opening interview.
If there was ever any doubt that Rudy is completely in the wrong party....this makes it clear.
All the marks of a troll. Posts and runs, doesn't answer when addressed.
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.