Conservatives misuse the term all the time. Dubya uses it wrong consistently, most senators on both sides of the aisle use it wrong, and so does Rudy, and so do most of the candidates (I think all of them), and most of their interviewers (have never seen one make the distinction). I have seen Scalia make the distinction, and of course I encountered it in Law School.
I always watch it when Scalia is on CSPAN (usually Saturdays courts hour on CSPAN2), and I know the session you mention. He was very clear that his approach is originalism, and it’s clear from the usage of ‘strict constructionism’ on the part of most conservatives (and almost exclusively on FR) that they mean ‘constitutional orgininalist.’
And another problem I see on FR is the fairly simplistic approach that someone needs to personally be pro life in order to be against the Roe decision. It really doesn’t mean that someone will necessarily vote one way or another on Roe. A pro abortion person or a pro lifer can feel Roe was wrongly decided.
Rudy has been unambiguous that he would appoint judges in the Roberts-Alito mold. Frankly that’s the best pro lifers can hope for now, and it’s good enough for me. And it doesn’t matter much if Roberts or Alito are personally pro life, either.
Nighty night.
His promise to appoint judges in the Roberts-Alito mode is nothing more than a sop to pro-lifers and conservatives in general. Rudy is neither personally pro-life nor against the Roe decision. He has rcently stated that a "stict constructionist", whether he understands or uses the term correctly, could uphold Roe. He thinks that the types of judges he woulsd appoint could uphold Roe. It doesn't get more unambiguous than that.