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~
Yep.
Obvious typo in my post. (I'm sure there are others.) Progency=progeny
retread banned
"All the marks of a troll. Posts and runs, doesn't answer when addressed."
He can't respond anymore. He's gone.
Where are the Rudybots on this thread. Did they all go to bed. Or are they afraid to tangle with the Freepers who have posted so far on this thread. Bring 'em on.
and supports a liberal for president.
Whenever we have the next poll, I think it would be very interesting to have a Rudy v. Romney question. I'm curious how the mormon aspect would come into play, as well as how many FReepers would go third party in that scenario.
His opponents will have a field day with that material. Ouch!
I still think that "third party" option is kind of a bizarre one for the primary questions BTW, but I get what it's trying to address.
Count me as third party if Giuliani, Romney or McCain are the Republican nominee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
I agree that Romney is too liberal, especially on abortion. I have a lot of relatives who are LDS (I'm not), and it's difficult to explain to them why I think Romney isn't a good choice without offending them. They really like the idea of a Mormon for President. The best way I've found to open their minds to the possibility that Romney isn't all that is to remind them that Harry Reid is technically LDS. They get it then.
Romney's candidacy is the worst thing that could have happened to the LDS church.
Maybe you're right: A one-term President Hillary Rodham Clinton is what this country needs before conservatives can muster decent candidates?
We don't have one—and it's too early anyway:
1) There are potential third-party candidates out there to throw the election.
2) Hitlery hasn't had a press conference yet—to show she's NOT up to the job.
3) Youtube.
:^)
I believe that he will put in someone he believes is a "Constitutionalist", but I seriously doubt his appointment will be in favor of abortion.
A liberal Democrat on another board was saying the Democrats would consider it a "moral victory" if JulieAnnie won the election.
"...It is my hope that one day we'll look back on the abortion cases like we now look back on Dred Scott..."
We already do... 2 court decisions which circumvented the will of the people, 2 decisions which take a certain section of mankind and treat them as chattel.
2 decisions which betrays this almost morbid fetish the West has with embracing an idea that can only lead to figurative... and ultimately, literal... death.
Dred Scott: blacks are property, no rights, mere chattel to do with as a person desires...
Roe v Wade: simply replace the word "blacks" with "babies".
From your screen to God's inbox, Nino... may it one day be so...
Asking myself, "Az, would you support a pro-abortion, gun grabbing, liberal candidate?"
As Rudy said, "No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing."
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.