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.
“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.