Posted on 04/04/2007 12:52:50 PM PDT by KantianBurke
“A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade,” he said. “They can look at it and say, ‘Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we’ll over turn it.’ [Or] they can look at it and say, ‘It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.’ Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that.”
Either way you rule as a Supreme Court Justice on any decision is OK by Rudy. What a concept.
Fair enough - I accept that - but the court overturned that - didn’t they?
ROTFLMAO! THAT’S your defense? Do tell, how much longer till the Giuliani campaign releases a statement pointing out this “fraud” irrespective of the VIDEO INTERVIEW posted above in which he makes his position clear? Must’ve been one of his evil body doubles huh?
Gun ownership is a constittuional right. Does he favor tax payer subsidies so the poor can purchase guns?
Well, this is certain to get him substantial numbers of democrat votes. And of course that’s what he is counting on since he now realizes that social conservative Republican voters will find someone else in the primaries and perhaps abstain from voting the presidential spot on election day.
There is a big gap between doing nothing to stop abortion and forcing taxpayers, many of whom believe the practice to be nothing short of murder, to pay for it.
If abortion is a "choice", why should taxpayers have to pay for it?
Giuliani should read the Constitution before he takes any more oaths of office. However, he will get no such opportunity from me with that position.
No - I fully expect him to stand by his words - he always does.
Sure they will. This is an insignificant issue according to them. The only issue that matters is the WOT and since RINO Rudy supposedly will stand up to the islamofascists, any other issue is secondary this irrelevant. Also, RINO Rudy is the only candidate the Republicans have that can defeat HRC.
And no, I’m not making this up.
Except the president appoints judges, and that impacts constitutional decisions.
You really should find a way to harness your spin to produce energy. You probably could make a small fortune.
Quite incorrect. Actually, a President's stance on abortion would potentially impact a number of things, such as any bills coming from Congress having to do with abortion funding, providing abortions at federal institutions such as military bases, foreign aid funding, and certainly not least, choice in judicial nominees at all levels.
Yup.
The logic is awful. Just because it’s a consitutional right to view porn doesn’t mean the government should buy every poor man a copy of Hustler. The government is not obligated to fianacially support every constitutional right.
Rudy has lost my vote.
“Please refrain from using CNN as a credible source on things we should care about.
That’s risky and a little ironic.”
In this case it’s pretty darn easy to verify.
I agree with you.
I do not support public funding - no way.
Rudy does - I don’t.
I will still vote for him.
This issue will never come to his desk. NEVER
Then stop claiming he is a fiscal conservative! That is a lie! No fiscal conservative is for gov’t funding of this sort.
How dishonest of you! Folks have posted the many ways that the President can influence the abortion issue, but you choose to continue making this false assertion as if you’ve found some easy way to lie Rudy into office.
They did. So it got passed and signed, again, with some tweaks, and is waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court. I think we'll have a decision come June.
But the presidential candidate reiterated his personal opposition to the practice.
"I'm in the same position now that I was 12 years ago when I ran for mayor -- which is, personally opposed to abortion, don't like it, hate it, would advise that woman to have an adoption rather than abortion, hope to find the money for it," he said. "But it is your choice, an individual right. You get to make that choice, and I don't think society should be putting you in jail." Giuliani also vowed to appoint conservative judges to the bench, though denied such a promise was a "wink and a nod" to conservatives in support of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion. "A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade," he said. "They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we'll over turn it.' [Or] they can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.' Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that."
Make up your mind. Either this story and the video interview is false and CNN is lying. Or your spurious mention of CNN was simply a waste of time and what Giuliani said is true.
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.