Here's where social conservatives can get tripped up. If Rudy is truly committed to appointing strict consructionist it doesn't matter if he's not a social conservative because in the long run those unelected judges can yield enormous dividends.
Don't worry he's just pandering.
Supporters of abortion see a right to abortion defined by the constitution. So just because Rudy says he will appoint "strict constitutionalists" as judges, that doesn't mean that he won't appoint liberals. In fact, his track record has been one of appointing liberal judges.
Social conservatives don't get "tripped up" here at all -- because that's a very, very big IF you've posted there at the start of the second sentence.
The notion that a person in public office who has a well-documented track record of adamant opposition to a "strict constructionist" approach to constitutional law would take it upon himself to nominate strict constructionists to the Federal judiciary is downright silly.
Exactly. A justice doesn't have to be pro-life to view Roe v. Wade for what it is: an outrageous and embarrassing power grab by the Supreme Court that had no underpinning in the Constitution.
I'd take a pro-abortion justice who read the Constitution as leaving abortion to be regulated by the States or the feds---or not, as those governments were persuaded to do---any day.