[Cincinatus' Wife]

How many times do we have to point out that your talking point here is no longer valid? Rudy has said a strict constructionist could uphold Roe. His words, not mine. So you are being dishonest yet again in trying to spin a claim that Rudy's own words have undone.

There you go again. He was pointing out in conversation, that appointing justices (as history has shown) doesn't guarantee an outcome but he'd try.

[dirtboy]

He was pointing out in conversation, that appointing justices (as history has shown) doesn't guarantee an outcome but he'd try.

Wrong.

He completely redefined strict constructionism to have no meaning by saying a strict constructionist could uphold Roe because it's precedent. Just about every pundit I've seen who has commented on Rudy's statement agrees with that assessment.

Only those drunk on Roody-Aid fail to see it.