[Cincinatus' Wife]

Well, the only way a Prez can affect whether Roe v Wade is overturned is in the choice of judges for the SCOTUS. This seems to mean Rudy would give us more Souters, Ginzburgs, et al.

???????????????????????

[dirtboy]

Rudy has said he would appoint strict constructionists. His supporters have pointed to that statement as proof Rudy would appoint pro-life judges. But he said this last night:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/giuliani.interview/

Giuliani told Bash that "a strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade. They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided. ... We will overturn it.' 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.'

"I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that."

----------------

So according to Rudy, his strict constructionist judges could look at an activist ruling like Roe and allow it to stand because it is precedent.

That is not strict constructionism. The activist liberal judiciary is predicated on building precedents one rung at a time to liberal objectives - with Kelo being the prime example.

[Sans-Culotte]

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Thursday defended his record favoring the use of public money for abortions, saying he wouldn't try to undo a Supreme Court ruling allowing the procedures.

Look, the only way Rudy can "try to undo a Supreme Court decision (Roe v Wade) on abortion" would be in choosing SCOTUS justices, unless Rudy is running for SCOTUS instead of POTUS. That would have to mean he will not appoint the sort of conservative, "strict constructionist" judges he's been claiming he would. If he does, then his statement above is a lie.