-
if you believe that, I have this to sell you
Hmmm.... seeing as how Rudy Giuliani actually supports a woman’s right to abortion as a constitutional right, I wonder how sincere is his pledge to appoint “strict constructionist” judges like Scalia?
Rooty Toot wouldn’t recognize a strict constructionist if his life depended on it. He would appoint judges who “strictly” define the Constitution as “living and breathing” and probably outdated. The best we would get under him is someone along the lines of Sandra Day O’Connor, but more likely we would get another Souter.
Originalist os Constructionist? I know Rooty said “Constructionalist. Originalist would be my choice.
As you say, it’s quite clear both from his early record and his recent comments that what Giuliani means by “strict construction” is very different from what it normally means.
Not too many months ago, he reiterated that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. Moreover, he added that they have a consitutional right to have the government pay for their abortion.
Pro-abortionists often play these word games, taking plain language and distorting it for their own purposes. “Reproductive health” and “choice” are two examples. It’s obvious that Rudy has no intention of appointing strict constructionists in the normal sense of the language.
Beat me to it. That was my first thought as well.
Not only does Rudy see the right to an abortion in there. He sees it so clearly that he thinks we should pay for abortions for those who need them.
Rudy sees a Super-Right. Maybe even a Super-Dooper Right to Abortion.
I don't see the Fed paying for me to set up a printing press or start a new church. So this right to an abortion that Rudy sees...Man, it must be really obvious, up-front, in-your-face. Not like those obscure rights like speech, religion, press, assembly, petition, etc. that are hidden in the First Amendment. /sarc