[Greg F]

We need a commitment from Guilianni to nominate Judges that are strict constructionists and are not supporters of Roe v. Wade. Should be the same thing but I think that it needs to be spelled out. That way if Guilianni is the nominee and he lied to us and nominates an unacceptable S.C. candidate, we burn him on re-election.

[normy]

Your point is why I think Rudy wont be what people think he will be. Roe vs. Wade is bad law and certainly the Constitution does not protect abortion. If anything it protects the life of the baby. If Rudy appoints strict constructionists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas then we will be fine. If however he is actually Arnold, which I don’t think he is, we would be in big trouble.

[longtermmemmory]

remember “no new taxex”

remember “harriet meyers”

remember 8 liberal to 1 conservative NYC judicial appointments?

No Giuliani, NO PROBLEM.

The GOP primary IS going to determine the presidential election. A Giuliani nominee IS Defeat for the voters at large.

[P-Marlowe]

We need a commitment from Guilianni to nominate Judges that are strict constructionists and are not supporters of Roe v. Wade.

LOL! Ask his ex-wife about how Rudy sticks to his "commitments".

Rudy is a firm supporter of Abortion. Hell, he's probably paid for a few for some of his mistresses. Does anyone really think he will stick to a commitment to give us strict constructionist judges? Does anyone want to buy a bridge in New York?