Posted on 11/15/2007 4:23:30 PM PST by wagglebee
Robertson said he opposes abortion and believes life begins at conception but that there are "various ways to protect life" -- with appointing judges to the Supreme Court as the top method.
"And I think Rudy Giuliani has assured the American people that he's going to appoint justices in the likeness of Scalia and John Roberts, et cetera," Robertson explained. "And he has assured people that, he assured me and others, and I believe him."
Asked how he could support Giuliani when the former mayor supports abortion, Robertson told the Fox news program beliefs on abortion don't matter if a president appoints pro-abortion judges.
"It really doesn't matter what your belief is if the courts nullify what you do," he said.
"And so I'm interested in judges. I think in the last election, in my opinion, the three most important issues were judges, judges, and judges. And I think it's still that way in terms of abortion," Robertson said.
Told that Giuliani appointed judges as mayor that probably were not pro-life, Robertson insisted Giuliani is being truthful when it comes to his plans for Supreme Court appointees.
"Well, I think he's telling the truth. I mean, you could say, well, he's a liar, but he has assured the American people who his standards are," Robertson said. "But I'm just taking him at his word as to what he's going to do as president."
However, Giuliani has said that the judges he appoints could rule either way on the question of reversing the Roe v. Wade ruling that allowed unlimited abortions.
"It would be okay to repeal. Or it would be okay also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision," he said during a May Republican debate.
"But I think ultimately that decision that has to be made is one that government shouldn't make," Giuliani said in an August debate, restating his pro-abortion views. "Ultimately, a woman should make that with her conscience and ultimately with her doctor."
The main reason it doesn’t matter, is because Rooty Toot has NEVER said that he would appoint pro-life justices, in fact he has indicated that he wouldn’t.
Here is what Rooty Toot said on July 21, 2005 on Hannity & Colmes:
“Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163223,00.html
Not exactly.
Rudy Giuliani:
"Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them."
- Thursday, July 21, 2005, Hannity and Colmes Fox News interview
Yep, that interview shows EXACTLY what type of person we could expect Rooty Toot to appoint. He said that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was just as qualified as John Roberts.
Alan Colmes is a liberal and honest about it, Hannity is a RINO but unwilling to admit it. Colmes shows a lot more integrity than Hannity does.
The four of them can burn in hell together for all I care.
Ping!
The sad part is, I trust NEITHER Giuliani, Romney or Thompson (my favorite) to appoint strict constructionist pro-lifers.
High time. Several years ago, Pat more or less gave a pass to the ChiComs for their forced one child policy. I think he was angling for broadcast rights there or some such thing.
Makes perfect sense, Rooty is a liar and though he is clear about not supporting pro life, we have every reason to beleive he will appoint pro life judges because WHAT????????????? He SAID SO???????????? are you f@#$ing kidding me?
Contrary to what Pat Robertson and the other Rooty Rooters would have us believe, Rooty Toot has NEVER indicated that he would appoint pro-life judges.
I’m glad he spared us the “God told me ......” speech.
That’s reserved for health shakes.
Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani makes sense if you believe we must have a president focusing on this country’s security for any future hope of discussion of social issues, and if you believe Giuliani is that person. I think the first is probably true, but I believe none of the candidates can provide the leadership of a Lincoln.
The country’s existence remained unchallenged since the Civil War, so we forgot the Constitutional priority for defending a country in which civil liberties would reside. Federalist Papers 28 and 74 discuss the subject; also the dissenting opinion of Robert Jackson in Terminiello v. City of Chicago. Jackson as chief prosecutor at Nuremberg of Nazi war criminals understood preservation of a democratic society as a precondition to civil liberties and rational discussion of social issues. I’m not about to compromise a pro-life stance, until I see some extraordinary leadership potential. But then wouldn’t that person also probably possess the integrity and common sense to be pro-life?
Hannity is not a rino...just a little immature “let’s beat hillary” cheerleader
Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani makes sense if you're a Robertson fan. If the nation's secuity is Pat's primary concern, he's got a stable of Republican candidates who can deliver, some like Hunter and McCain with actual experience in the field. No disrespect intended for Rudy's contension that a Mayor's supervision of the police force equates with the position of CIC.
No, he’s a RINO. Hannity has spent the entire year pushing Rooty Toot every chance he gets, he has done everything he can to obscure Rooty’s pro-abortion stance, pro-homosexualism, pro-illegal alien, gun grabbing agenda.
Rooty Toot turned the NYPD over to a criminal.
That’s the problem. It’s not just that Rudy isn’t pro-life. he also doesn’t have integrity
Sadly, Pat’s a few verses shy of a full sermon and has allowed his old Democrat ways make a come back.
Go Fred go.
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.