While I see your point (i.e., it can be argued that deciding what constitutes interpretation vs. invention is ultimately subjective), I’m not sure there aren’t objective parameters... in which case it isn’t pertinent... unless Rudy plans to nominate himself. ;)
Rudy has explicitly defined what he means by the term:
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.
I’ve already heard that, and it doesn’t ease my concerns.
Now, could you please answer the question?
“Do you personally think that a judge who is, by definition, a “strict constructionist”, believes that the Constitution allows for federal funding of abortions?”
"-I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it."- Rudy
He thinks 'strict constructionist' would be "PROBABLY" the way he describes it!?
Sorry,but that's neither explicit nor confidence inspiring.
Mia T: Speaking of the relatively minor matter (compared to 50+ million dead innocent babies) of whether Rudy lies, just when was Rudy a “colleague” of Antonin Scalia???? Rudy was never a SCOTUS judge, never a DC Court of Appeals judge and never a University of Chicago Law School professor. Did they shine shoes together as children?