Replies

Great! They need to be LOUD to make people hear it over and over.

Yeah. And after we get a Dem president, they can go down to D.C. and protest the PRO CHOICE nominee to replace Stevens. They can go back again when Ginsberg resigns. And, who knows? In eight years, even Kennedy might go...that would give them an easy majority for the rest of our lives!

On the other hand, we only need ONE appointment to tilt the court for the rest of our lifetimes. Either Ginsberg or Stevens WILL leave in the next 4 or 8 years---likely both. I believe Rudy would keep his promise to appoint strict constructionists. Even if they're more moderate than some conservatives would like, Rudy's appointee would be far favorable to either Ginsberg or Stevens.

I believe Rudy would keep his promise to appoint strict constructionists.

You mean like Ginsberg who he loves and praises?

Rudy doesn't know the meaning of "Constructionist", much less strict.

Rudy doesn't know the meaning of "Constitutional", nor does he care to learn.

I can't trust any man who praised Margaret Sanger before NARAL, sorry he is NO different, and it many case much worse than any of those liberal democrats.

We don't have to have Rudy, there are a few men running you know.

While he was the “Republican Mayor” of New York City he appointed more than 60 men and women to the Civil, Criminal, and Family Court benchs. In all of those judicial appointment only two were Republican.

All of his other judical appointments were either registered Liberals or registered Democrats. As the “Republican Mayor” he had appointment power over more than 70 full commissioners in more than 50 City agencies, yet at no time during his administration did REPUBLICANS account for more than 10% of those appointments.

He even appointed Chuck Schumers wife as the City’s Department of Transportation Commissioner.

________________________________________________________________
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9054.html

“And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.”
Rudolph Giuliani

At the first Republican debate in May, Giuliani was alone among the GOP candidates in offering a less-than-robust affirmation when asked whether it would be a good day if the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling.

"It would be OK," Giuliani said. "It would be OK to repeal it."

But, he added: "It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent" and kept the law intact.

I believe Rudy would keep his promise to appoint strict constructionists.

Really, I bet you believed GHWB when he said, "Read my lips: no new taxes."

Rooty has NEVER indicated that he would appoint justices who are pro-life; in fact, he has publicly said that he would appoint pro-abortion justices, and for the record he has also stated that he supported the appointment of Ginsburg.

From Rudy Giuliani Interview on Hannity and Colmes, July 21, 2005:

COLMES: Now, on abortion — now, you are pro-choice, right?

GIULIANI: Yes.

COLMES: You're a pro-choice Republican.

GIULIANI: I am.

--------

COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade -- You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...

GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.

I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her. I expect, and listening to Senator Nelson, I expect that John Roberts will get support from a lot of Democrats.

--------

GIULIANI: Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them.