As bad or WORSE than Hillary's choices? Put the cap back onto that cheap bottle of whine you are drinking. D-e-l-u-s-i-o-n...
Worse than Hillary's!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 10/10/2007 11:43:00 AM PDT by TitansAFC
Would Rudy Be Good for the Courts? Well, Meese was good for the courts, and Giuliani didn’t think much of him.
By Robert Alt
After a disappointing performance in the first Republican presidential debate, Rudy Giuliani walked away from last night’s debate as the clear winner. Not only did he play to his strengths, reclaiming the mantle of America’s mayor by shaming Ron Paul for his “blame America first” comments, but he finally appears to have settled on a more politically palatable answer to the abortion question by emphasizing a reduction in the frequency of abortions. (An answer which, by the way, suggests that one of his staffers finally watched footage from Bill Clinton’s campaigns. Remember the old mantra of “safe, legal, and rare”?) This follows strong endorsements from the Club for Growth and from former United States Solicitor General Ted Olson here on National Review Online. And yet, questions remain about Giuliani’s conservative bona fides, and nowhere are these questions more pressing than on the issue of judicial nominees. Despite Olson’s assurances, Giuliani’s poor character judgment, as demonstrated by his attacks on Edwin Meese, the architect of Reagan’s judicial legacy, creates grave doubts about whether he is the best man to be picking federal judges.
In determining what the “Giuliani Court” would look like, the fundamental question is whether Giuliani, as president, would appoint judges to the bench who view the Constitution as something other than their own personal policy-preference playground. On this count, Giuliani has offered a series of assurances: He would have no litmus test on abortion, and he would appoint “strict constructionists” like Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Leaving aside the fact that “strict constructionist” is a term popular with politicians but an inaccurate one to describe the Justices he lauds (Justice Scalia famously said, “I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . .”), the prospect of appointing judges with fidelity to the Founders’ principles is easier said than done. Indeed, Republican presidents have, on the whole, proven themselves to be fairly inept at judging how nominees would judge, as evidenced by the fact that two of the most liberal justices in the history of the Supreme Court — William Brennan and Harry Blackmun — owe their appointments to Republican presidents.
Well-meaning presidents have made bad picks, and so, even if we believe that Giuliani does not intend to appoint willful judges, those good intentions and naked assurances tell us little about what kind of judges to expect. Yet Olson, whom I deeply respect, offers another reason to trust Giuliani: his participation in the Reagan’s legal legacy.
We first met when we served together in the Justice Department in the early years of the Reagan administration, where Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were young lawyers honing their conservative legal instincts, and where jurists such as Bork, Scalia, and Thomas were first being considered for judicial positions.
Of course, he doesn’t claim that Giuliani is responsible for these men being where they were. Tellingly, Attorney General Edwin Meese, the man most responsible for shepherding conservative jurists through the Justice Department, didn’t make the list. In terms of promoting conservatism in the Justice Department or on the courts during the Reagan years, Meese’s impact was unmatched. It is therefore disturbing that Giuliani held Meese in utter contempt. After stepping down as U.S. Attorney, Giuliani publicly blasted Meese, claiming that he was “probably not suited for the job that he was given as attorney general,” and that Meese “should not have been given that job because it was beyond his abilities.” Beyond his abilities? I’ve seen General Meese answer questions of legal arcana off the top of his head countless times; by contrast, Giuliani seems to get stumped when asked whether the existence of a constitutional right requires government funding.
This attack on whether Meese was even suited to be attorney general followed Giuliani’s antics as U.S. Attorney, during which he authorized one of his assistants in the Wedtech case to call Meese a “sleaze” in open court in order to score points with the jury. If there is any question that this sentiment was Giuliani's own, he cleared that up in a press conference after the trial:
U.S. Atty. Rudolph W. Giuliani held a press conference, during which he defended [Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward] Little's use of the word "sleaze" to describe Meese. Giuliani said that any criticism for Little's remarks should be directed at him.
"All of his (Little's) arguments and comments were authorized by me and approved by me, including some that drew some criticism from the Department of Justice," Giuliani told reporters. "Those comments were authorized and approved by me in advance. It's as if I said them" (emphasis added).
One of those classically-invasive Reagan-era independent counsels cleared Meese in the Wedtech case. Of course that didn’t matter: Attacking Meese was fashionable at the time — all the Democrats were doing it. And, for someone who had aspirations of running for mayor of New York, this was a position which would undoubtedly curry favor with his constituents. While numerous commentators have lauded Giuliani’s decision to criticize his boss as an example of his independence, it is better evidence of how beholden he was to liberal New York public opinion. If he was willing to sell out Meese to raise his standing with liberal New Yorkers, do we really think that he will withstand the withering criticisms of New York’s elite if he fails to deliver justices in the mold of David Souter?
Attorney General Meese is a man of consummate character. He served honorably as attorney general, and, unlike Rudy Giuliani, deserves significant credit for shaping the legal legacy of Ronald Reagan. Anyone who casts aspersions of the kind that Giuliani did against Meese calls his own judgment into question — particularly when he is asking for us to trust that judgment in picking judicial nominees.
The “Stop Rudy” ping list!
E-mail/ping me if you want on/off the list! SPREAD THE WORD!!!
Rudy would pick Supreme Court Judges that mirror his views like every President.
Trouble is though I don’t support too many of his views:
gun control
abortion
amnesty for illegals
support for the homosexual agenda
support for illegals
etc.
Etc.
Rudy would pack the courts with New England lawyers, none of them conservative.
Rudy would hire his cronies.
but...but...we will have to trust Rooty...he is the only one than can beat Hillary...he will go against his history and be a real conservative...and he was a hero on 911...
blah,blah,blah...so all you dumb socons work to get out the vote for Rooty before we dump you forever...
No wonder we are known as the dumb party. Hillary could not ask for more.
Who would Hillary pick?
Most likely the same type Rudy would pick. He is a social liberal. Why expect him to be conservative?
Nope. Think worse than you can imagine.
Actually, I think that most Presidents choose their Supreme Court picks by accepting the choice of someone in their Administration that they trust to find someone who mirrors their views. Since Rudy is a lawyer, chances are he would choose his own instead of relying on a trusted aide. I feel confident Rudy's choices would be as bad or worse than Clinton's because he would have personal knowledge of his picks and would not be relying on someone else's judgment.
While I’m not enthused about Rudy, don’t these elections always come down to the lesser of two evils? Hillary simply cannot win!
As bad or WORSE than Hillary's choices? Put the cap back onto that cheap bottle of whine you are drinking. D-e-l-u-s-i-o-n...
Worse than Hillary's!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!
IMO, it’s not impossible Giuliani could end up appointing the first gay justice - he does not pay much attention to normal standards of “competence” or “experience” as a measure of fitness for an appointment (ex: his driver ends up chief of police)and his is not likely to care what politicians of either party would prefer he do - if fact he’s apt to do the opposite, just to show them who is in charge.
I do, however, believe we can obtain a much better choice for a GOP nominee.
Touted by Nixon as "a strict constructionist," Blackmun went on to AUTHOR Roe v. Wade
and some of the most progressive (and destructive) opinions on environmental rights.
He tried to sue gun manufacturers.
Nuff said.
Rudy appointed judges who were 80% democrat when he was Mayor.
Heck, he even appointed homosexuals as judges to family court!
Laugh all you want. He is NO better than Hillary. Both are screaming liberals and if you don’t recognize that then perhaps you may be one also. I haven’t voted for a liberal of either party for 30+ yrs., and I do not intend to start now.
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.