“Rudy is a former prosecutor.”
You could not prove it by his ignorance of the criminal statutes governing Illegal Immigration. Do you think the MSM and some of the adoring bloggers in Rudy’s coterie would have been forgiving had Fred made a misstep like this? A first year Assistant United States Attorney knows the criminal penalties for illegal immigration.
“..there is a constitutional right to abortion..”
That is regrettably the case, but it was not his recognition of that “right” that my post was directed to but, rather, to his opinion that the Constitution requires that that right be funded for indigent women. This is another flat out misstatement of Supreme Court precedent, since laws denying use of public funds or facilities for abortion have consistently been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977). I suppose Rudy’s view is that a strict consructionist judge could come to the conclusion, contrary to precedent, that there is both a “right to abortion” and a constitutional right to require the government to pay for the abortion. I have little faith that he would appoint genuine constitutionalists to the Supreme Court, given his own expansive views of constitutional rights.