[dirtboy]

The mayor’s rationale for abortion funding is bizarre. Putting his statements together and reading them as charitably as possible, his argument is that so long as the Supreme Court says abortion is a constitutional right state governments have an obligation to help poor women afford it...

Rudy made two statements that just defy belief - that anyone both serious about winning the GOP nomination and saavy enough to win the nomination would make such utterances. The first was the reference to public funding of abortions as some kind of right. And the second was Rudy's interpretation of strict constructionism:

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.'

So a strict constructionist can look at precedent ... even if that precedent was NOT based on strict constructionism? If that is the case, the term has lost any meaning and constraint on the judicial process.

Rudy just shattered his carefully-crafted illusion that he could be palpable to pro-lifers.

His handlers better hope he stays away from gun-rights issues.

[narses]

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," July 20, 2005...

COLMES: Now, on abortion — now, you are pro-choice, right?

GIULIANI: Yes.

COLMES: You're a pro-choice Republican.

GIULIANI: I am.

~snip~

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.

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.'

[aligncare]

Well...I was for Mr. Giuliani...before I was against him (after that bone headed statement)...

Your comment, I’m disappointed to say, is accurate...I am reevaluating...

[narses]

His handlers better hope he stays away from gun-rights issues.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9054.html

“And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.”
Rudolph Giuliani

[Spiff]

So a strict constructionist can look at precedent ... even if that precedent was NOT based on strict constructionism? If that is the case, the term has lost any meaning and constraint on the judicial process.

Much like the term "conservative" loses all meaning if it gets associated with a flaming liberal like Rudy Giuliani.

[Alberta's Child]

One of the advantages to having solid principles -- and sticking to them -- is that you never sound like a fool when you are forced to defend them.

Just look at Giuliani's recent muddled, disingenuous statements on this issue, and compare them to the forceful and assertive -- but radical, hard-core, pro-abortion -- statements he's made in the past.

Does anyone here really doubt where Giuliani stands on this issue?