Posted on 07/18/2007 5:42:56 AM PDT by Valin
It would be hard to imagine Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama gaining points with the base of their party by unveiling a list of liberal judges dedicated to the proposition that the Constitution and liberal social policy coincide perfectly. Both presidential candidates believe this, of course, but the effort would seem gratuitous. They both would nominate and deliver another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, their Democratic primary voters would say.
For the Democratic Party it is simply a given that the judiciary is an extension of the left's policy agenda -- abortion, affirmative action, and gun control to name a few. There simply is no separation between what Hillary Clinton thinks is good policy and what her prospective judges would consider constitutionally required.
(snip)
For Republicans, of course, it is a whole different ballgame, which explains why Rudy Giuliani rolled out an impressive list of prospective judges -- the equivalent of the 1927 Yankees. A judiciary stocked full of Miguel Estradas is tempting indeed for both social and legal conservatives hoping to build upon the Roberts and Alito additions to the Supreme Court.
For Giuliani specifically it is a savvy political move to assure voters that his pledge to nominate strict constructionist judges is not mere talk. With Fred Thompson in the wings and Mitt Romney promising to clean up the cultural sewage of America, it is smart politics to display what the legal landscape would look and sound like in a Giuliani administration.
This tactic may work precisely because judges matter so dearly to Republicans. This issue resonates on both a philosophical and political level.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Wasn’t there an actress named Jennifer Rubin?
Rudy simply cannot undo the self-inflicted damage he caused when he stated that, in his opinion, a strict constructionist could uphold Roe. He can post lists of judges all he wants, but that is no guarantee he would actually nominate any of them for SCOTUS.
In any case it's irrelevant, Rooty ain't going to nominate anybody, any how to any thing.
This was a WTF moment for me. What was this candidate thinking when he was trying to win GOP voters in the primary season. I can see a Rhino making this statement in the general election because as such they believe most Americans are left of center.
but as I recall there weer some ‘issues’ some of Estrada’s decisions. Wasn’t he open borders like AG Gonzo??? Again, that’s what I recall, I could be very wrong.
Don’t know.
That’s a reply you don’t see every day.
Giuliani cannot be trusted to appoint strict constructionist judges given his proven penchant for pissing on the constitution.
Only the foolish are fooled by Giuliani’s get-myself-elected talk. He will do and say just about anything to get himself elected now. By primary time, I wouldn’t doubt that he will be trying to sound like the most conservative candidate in the bunch. He’s a liar like most liberals. I wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances in any election.
In Rudyworld strict constructionist judges build on the prior precedents of earlier judges —ie. they DO NOT overturn prior SCOTUS decisions (can you say Roe v Wade is law of the land?).
I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word constructionist is ... his or ours.
He can post lists of judges all he wants, but that is no guarantee he would actually nominate any of them for SCOTUS.
True, of course the same thing could be said of all the candidates.
As I recall the judges he put in place as mayor were pretty good. (sorry I don’t have a list of them)
The complete roster of his judicial advisory committee:
http://race42008.com/category/rudy-giuliani/
Chairman of Justice Advisory Committee:
Ted Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States
Members:
Miguel Estrada, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States
Steven Calabresi, Co-Founder of the Federalist Society
Larry Thompson, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States
Charles Fried, former Solicitor General of the United States
Carol Dinkins, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States
Maureen Mahoney, former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States
Doug Cox, former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States
Marc Mukasey, former Assistant U.S. Attorney
Dan Webb, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
Bart Schwartz, former Chief of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York
Michael Mukasey, former Chief Judge , U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Ron Cass, former Dean, Boston University School of Law
Jason Barclay, former Counsel and Policy Director to Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN)
Randy Mastro, former Deputy Mayor of New York City
Howard Wilson, former Commissioner of Investigation for New York City
Daniel Rodriguez, former Dean, University of San Diego School of Law
George Priest, Professor of Law and Economics, Yale University
Walter Olson, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
This list includes conservative stalwart Ted Olson (who chairs the committee), a member of the “Conservative Dream Team” for future SCOTUS appointments-Miguel Estrada, Co-Founder of the Federalist Society-Stephen Calabresi, and two people who were rumored to be on Dubya’s short-list to replace Harriet Miers- Larry Thompson and Maureen Mahoney. Add to this list the past statements from Olson regarding Janice Rogers Brown and it would appear that Team Giuliani has done much to assuage the fears of conservatives regarding the judge issue
Even if I believed Giuliani on this issue, there’s still that pesky second amendment problem and the illegal immigration issue, not to mention abortion. Ah, well. He was looking good there for a second.
I wouldn’t say that “judges are so dear to Republicans” -
it’s just that the left, with their inability to convince the democratic majority of the governed that their ideas are correct,
consistently use the judiciary to force their policies on us.
It’s a matter of halting this behavior, not that “judges are dear” to conservatives.
I just ‘seem’ to recall that when he finally withdrew his name there’s wasn’t any cry of outrage, except that the Rats held him up in committee for years.
Other candidates such as Fred and Duncan Hunter don't have a liberal past that raises the concerns that conservatives have with Rudy.
As I recall the judges he put in place as mayor were pretty good. (sorry I don’t have a list of them)
You're kidding, right? There was hardly a pubbie among the bunch of them. Another problem for Rudy.
bookmark
Power Line
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018266.php
Giuliani’s bench, Part Three
From a conservative perspective, two legal issues come quickly to mind with respect to Rudy Giuliani — abortion, of course, and also the perception that as a federal prosecutor he tended to use the government’s power and the legal process abusively at times.
The first issue is pretty straightforward, at least as a legal matter. Either one accepts Giuliani’s statement that he will appoint stict constructionist judges like John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and that this is about all the president reasonably can do about Roe v. Wade, or one doesn’t. That said, the fact that Ted Olson, a leading conservative legal light who has known Giuliani well since 1981, is comfortable that Rudy would appoint non-activist judges provides some comfort.
On the second issue — over-zealous use of legal process — I turn to a different Olson. Walter Olson (no relation to Ted) will also serve on Giuliani’s committee. He is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and perhaps the nation’s foremost proponent of the proposition that this nation is “overlawyered” (the name of his blog) and in dire need of litigation reform.
Today, Walter Olson explained to me why he supports Giuliani. He began by acknowledging that Rudy’s days as a prosecutor had once caused him concern. To be sure, business and white collar defendants should not get a pass from prosecution, or even the humiliation that goes with it, in appropriate cases. But there was a sense that Giuliani may have gone overboard at times, using the law as a “blunt instrument.”
However, Olson believes, based on subsequent events, that this is not a serious concern. First, as a resident of New York city, Olson found that Giuliani showed good judgment in legal matters during his tenure as mayor. Despite pressure from various sources (including the New York Times) to go after business in novel ways, Giuliani didn’t bite. Moreover, as mayor it was Giuliani’s responsibility to defend against the multitude of frivolous lawsuits filed against the city’s service providers, such as hospitals. This tends to concentrate the mind of most mayors, but according to Olson, Giuliani reacted more forcefully than his predecessors. Indeed, as a law enforcement guy, Rudy seemed deeply offended that the system was being abused this way.
Olson has also found Giuliani’s top advisers committed to federalism and the need for litigation reform. And he notes that these sentiments are finding their way into Rudy’s speeches, often (to no one’s surprise) in the context of discussing his experiences as mayor.
In short, Olson is convinced that (1) Giuliani understands that our legal system is given to excess and (2) he doesn’t like it. That’s not a bad testimonial.
JOHN adds: The Giuliani campaign has done a follow-up post on the Candidates’ Forum, here. Let them know what you think of the full committee.
___________________________________________
Power Line: Candidates Forum
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/20762/
You’re right. She was in a couple of horror flicks during the late 1980’s. Whether this is the same Jennifer Rubin, I don’t know.
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.