Replies

If he appoints strict-constructionist judges, it really doesn't matter what his personal opinions are (or were). If ....

If he appoints strict-constructionist judges, it really doesn't matter what his personal opinions are (or were). If ....

Not true. Because public funding of abortions doesn't take the courts -- Rudy could (and would) do it by Executive Order, even if we do retake Congress.

10 posted on 03/11/2007 2:48:47 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)

Dear dodger,

"If he appoints strict-constructionist judges, it really doesn't matter what his personal opinions are (or were). If ...."

For someone who thinks that abortion is a constitutional right, and believes that the government should fund abortions for those who can't afford them otherwise, a "strict constructionist" might be... Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

sitetest

22 posted on 03/11/2007 3:26:11 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)

"If he appoints strict-constructionist judges."

IF pigs had wings!

23 posted on 03/11/2007 3:29:53 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)

Why would you believe that he would appoint strict constructionist judges? Despite what he may say about some current SC members. I am not aware of anything in his political history that would indicate he would do such a thing.

If he appoints strict-constructionist judges, it really doesn't matter what his personal opinions are

You need to understand that liberals like Rudy and Hillary look at the constitution and see a "right" to abortion included in it. So Rudy's strict constitutionalists will defend Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the guy supports public funding for them. This means that the various executive orders that he issues will be all pro abortion. Big dollars will go to Planned Parenthood from the federal government.

65 posted on 03/11/2007 6:43:49 PM PDT by Old_Mil (Duncan Hunter in 2008! A Veteran, A Patriot, A Reagan Republican... http://www.gohunter08.com/)

Why in the world would ANYONE believe that he would appoint judges that OPPOSE his basic beliefs?

Even Rudy himself has gone on record as saying (paraphrasing), "Presidents appoint judges that they think will agree with their policies."

So why in the world would anyone think that someway, somehow, for some UNKNOWN REASON--Rudy would do the opposite? The Rudy-Apologists are really 'groping' with that one. Geeeez

68 posted on 03/11/2007 6:50:34 PM PDT by stockstrader ("Where government advances--and it advances relentlessly--freedom is imperiled"-Janice Rogers Brown)

If he appoints strict-constructionist judges, it really doesn't matter what his personal opinions are (or were).

If he can't keep a marriage vow then what makes you think he'll keep that ambiguous promise?

74 posted on 03/11/2007 7:33:59 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Grovelnator Schwarzenkaiser: Debtor's fascism for Kaleefornia, one charade at a time.)

Do politicians usually keep their campaign promises?

I don't trust him to pick pro-life, conservative judges, because presidents always at least TRY to pick a nominee that matches their ideology.

Even Rudy admitted this when he said:

"Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163223,00.html

80 posted on 03/11/2007 8:50:08 PM PDT by Sun (Vote for Duncan Hunter in the primaries. See you there.)