Posted on 04/16/2007 4:25:25 AM PDT by Liz
....Rudy Giuliani will speak tomorrow at the university founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, a major appearance for the former mayor...who holds liberal social views....Giuliani made his sharpest case for moving beyond social issues this weekend in Iowa, telling The Des Moines Register, "Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we're for, not if we're a party that's known for what we're against." Asked about abortion, he said, "Our party has to get beyond issues like that." Giuliani upset conservatives - and surprised supporters - by saying he favored public funding for abortion....His campaign quickly noted he wasn't proposing changes to current federal laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Check his interview on Hannity & Colmes.
Rudy explicitly defines what he means by 'strict constructionist.'
GIULIANI: I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously.HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, Roberts, Alito.
GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a great judge. You are never going to get somebody exactly the same. I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it.
P.S. Re "litmus test":
If you ask a candidate for the Supreme Court how he would vote on Roe and he answers, he would have to recuse himself should that issue come before the court.
1000% !!!!!
I will max out my $ to him the day he announces. He is smart, real and a communicator. He actually has values, not a script like Hillary.
He would take no merde from the Woggies and be an inspiration to all.
The question means that the questioner is out of touch with reality. We will defeat domestic terrorism rather easily. We will defeat Islamofascisti with some difficulty but defeat them we will. With the domestic evil of abortion, we have been at it for 34 years now since Herod Blackmun and his homicidal six pro-abort brethren on SCOTUS crammed babykilling in the tens of millionms down our throats. Still,there is no shortage of those who find those babies just soooooooo inconvenient, even in the atrophied Rockefeller wing of the GOP, and want the GOP to surrender on morals. No sale.
I have never knowingly voted for a pro-abortion candidate or a gungrabber, and I do not intend to start now.
I am a Republican insofar as they are conservative, and not when they are not. If they forfeit my vote with a liberal nominee, it is not my decision, but theirs.
Can you tell me about Rudy's heroic efforts after 911. I keep hearing about all he did but can't find specifics on line.
My experience with a community devastated by a tornado gives me a little insight as to what a mayor, or leader has to deal with. Deaths, injuries, loss of jobs, loss of homes, loss of electricity and water for days, schools and nursing homes destroyed, and the clean up.
I realize 911 in NYC was an overwhelming ordeal for us all and we were all afraid that it wouldn't stop there, and indeed it didn't. But I am curious what Rudy did that was so incredibly special that other leaders haven't done or haven't gotten credit for?
If Mr. Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, then social conservatives will have already lost the election, as a liberal will be elected no matter what.
At that point, it will be important for social conservatives to look to the future, to see where we might go, having suffered serious electoral defeat in 2008.
For myself, I’ll probably vote third party.
I won’t vote for Mr. Giuliani, and of course, I won’t vote Democrat.
sitetest
Speaking of hyperbola, it is perfectly ridiculous to suppose that liberals (any liberals!) incuding Giuliani are MORE dependable even on war than are conservatives. The nonsense that we have to nominate a social issue surrnder monkey to beat Her Satanic Majesty or any other Demonrat, was destroyed by Reagan's massive victories despite identical wailing and moaning from the Rockefeller/Ford/Dole types.
Then we are on the same page. God bless you and yours.
Aw shucks! Thank you! God bless you and yours as ever.
We nominate at our own peril someone whose only executive experience and achievement is playing a president onstage.
In this age of clintonian surreality, we must resist the temptation of reversing the premise of reality TV to create an even more absurd product.
That said, Thompson is no conservative. He voted to eviscerate the First Amendment (which isn’t ‘First’ for nothing) just when we need it most-at election time. He is also part of the entrenched power in DC.
We will not solve our problems unless and until we purge DC of the professional pols and replace them with citizen politicians, people of exceptional caliber who will lend their expertise for a term or two and then return to their day jobs.
... In the meantime, to protect the children—ALL the children—we must make certain the clintons do not retake the White House.
I appreciate your position but I was asking about Fred Thompson vs. the Demonrats. We are going to beat Rudy before he gets to the convention.
“A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade,” he said. “They can look at it and say, ‘Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we’ll over turn it.’ [Or] they can look at it and say, ‘It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.’ Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that.”
Except Rudy later altered the definition of strict constructionist to have no real meaning when he said a strict constructionist could also uphold Roe as long-standing precedent.
Y'all can't even keep up with your own candidate's spin cycle.
“Rudy is an enemy to the US Contitution and to conservatism, and so are his supporters.”
The quintessential RINO!
RIIIIIIIGHT!
Instead of Fred Dalton Thompson, we should (?????) elect the cross-dressing, babykiller supporting, gungrabbing, lavender canoodling supporting former mayor of New York??? I don't think so. Based upon your post, Wendell Willke must have been a really great candidate in 1940, Ross Perot in 1992, Alf Landon (daddy of abortion-loving Nancy Landon Kassebaum) and their liberal ilk would have made great presidents too! Each had "executive experience" unlike George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln (gag me but for other reasons), and others.
You keep on repeating a mantra about children born and unborn but provide no substance to the suggestion that you or your candidate support the unborn. That Rudy yaddayaddas about "strict constructionists" proves nothing. Whatever reason would Rudy have to lie??? Warmed-over Rockefellerist hysterics about the need to nominate issue surrender monkeys does not prevail.
That is true.
Chief Justice Roberts said essentially the same thing.
Roberts stated that Roe is “settled as a precedent of the Court.”
At the same time, he repeatedly stated that he would not address how principles of stare decisis apply to any particular case.
“I realize 911 in NYC was an overwhelming ordeal for us all and we were all afraid that it wouldn’t stop there, and indeed it didn’t. But I am curious what Rudy did that was so incredibly special that other leaders haven’t done or haven’t gotten credit for?”
Rudy arranged for 72 photo opps in 72 hours. Not an easy task, but he pulled it off.
Let me translate the legalese. Roberts said that Roe vs. Wade (34 years old and counting) is "settled law" but so was Plessy vs. Ferguson (railroad segregation upheld) handed down in 1894 or thereabouts when it was overturned UNANIMOUSLY by Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954. With good reason, Roberts called Roe "settled law" but refused to say how he would rule on an attempt to overturn.
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.