Giuliani to Unveil a Quality-Filled “Justice Advisory Committee”
FOX News reports:
GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani will unveil his “Justice Advisory Committee” this week on a two-day swing through heavily Republican western districts of Washington, D.C., home of the first presidential caucuses in 2008.
The committee signals an important moment for building his relationship with social conservatives a he tries to convince skeptical Iowans he can compete seriously in the caucuses.
Former U.S. solicitor general under President Bush, Ted Olson, will chair the panel. Former Bush administration Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and filibustered judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada will be among the “who’s who” of conservative legal and judicial advisers to Giuliani.
I like the sound of that. Regular readers know I am a big fan of Estrada’s, and I like Ted Olson quite a bit as well.
Pejman sums up my feelings well:
This is no doubt reassuring from the standpoint of conservatives. It would be especially effective if Giuliani used the formation of this committee to announce that whatever his personal views concerning hot-button legal issues like abortion, he would be willing and eager to defer to a federalist solution or approach to resolving those problems. Such an announcement would cause even people who disagree with Giuliani’s personal views to respect and appreciate his legal stance and would perhaps draw more support for the former Mayor in his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination.
In other words, it’s a good start — but I’d like to see more of a commitment to judicial conservatism from the horse’s mouth. Committees are great and all — and I like the names on this list — but they’re, uh, committees. Giuliani needs to speak out about what his criteria would be in selecting Justices. It’s my biggest reservation about the man.
This is a small step towards addressing that reservation, though, and I’m mildly encouraged.
Here’s why you shouldn’t be encouraged at all. It’s a link to a video of Giuliani saying, on April 4 of this year, that abortion is a constitutional right and should get public funding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZe1j4csMq8
Oh, and let’s not forget that Giuliani repeatedly has reminded us that even the kinds of Justices he says he’d appoint could uphold Roe v. Wade on stare decisis grounds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on3TfHi2Xl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVtJZYF84WE
To paraphrase Paul Harvey on Richard Nixon: Mr. Patterico, I love you, but you’re wrong.
Alan (8d202d) — 7/16/2007 @ 6:55 pmIndeed. It’s encouraging.
I’m not at all sure Fred will be the nominee. I think Giuliani is more likely for many reasons, some of them good.
Now I’m siting a source that some conservatives call “psychotic moonbat ranting”. I don’t dispute that characterization because I know little about the source.
But the source’s credentials (and it includes the Washington Post and the Memphis Commercial Appeal) or lack thereof have little to do with whether the story is true.
I’m not so concerned with what Fred’s views were a 13-14 years ago… although that isn’t long ago… I’m more concerned with what his views may have been compared to how he recently has characterized them.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 6:56 pmGood post, Alan. Mine is related. Make sure you read the link. I’ll watch said videos.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 6:57 pmGuiliani does seemed to have chosen good people. He has a record of mostly hiring and standing by good people.
And he’s strong enough to fire ’em when they need firing. This is a plus in an executive.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:16 pmIt’s a minus that he said, only four months ago, that there’s a constitutional right to have an abortion, and it’s another minus that he repeatedly tells us that the kind of justice he’d appoint might uphold that great abomination of constitutional law. The warning signs are there, but many on the Right just aren’t seeing them.
The most important opinions are those of Giuliani, not those of the people he’s chosen to advise him. Giuliani isn’t a man to change his mind lightly. He was known, as mayor of New York, for holding fast to his opinions and fighting for them. Don’t say you weren’t warned. Giuliani is not going to appoint more Scalias or Thomases, it’s just that simple.
Why any conservative still holds out hope for Giuliani, I simply can’t imagine.
Alan (8d202d) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:25 pmAlan, why have you not read the link about Fred’s possible dishonesty related to his abortion views as recently as 13 years ago?
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:35 pmI read it, and the “as recently” simply doesn’t move me. On abortion, Giuliani is by far the worst of the lot.
Alan (8d202d) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:36 pmThe point is the potential lying.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:40 pmThe lying, if so, would have taken place on June 5th.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:42 pmLet’s weigh the evils here.
Thompson: Possibly lied about how long he’s believed that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.
Giuliani: Definitely will appoint Supreme Court Justices who will preserve Roe v. Wade. And thinks that if something is a constitutional right, then the government should pay to help people exercise those rights.
It’s like comparing a schoolyard bully to a mass murderer. Your point isn’t worth the time we’re taking to discuss it.
Alan (8d202d) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:44 pmAnd your logic is that the more recent sin is the worse one?
Alan (8d202d) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:44 pmIf Thompson had been pro-Roe as of June 5th, then I’d never even consider voting for Thompson. But there’s no evidence of Thompson making pro-Roe statements anywhere near as recently as Giuliani has. I can actually believe that Thompson has converted, though some doubt he has. But Giuliani hasn’t converted, and he’s put that beyond all doubt.
Alan (8d202d) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:46 pmCandidates lying about important issues, if true, isn’t even worth the time to discuss it?
An issue that you believe is critical to your decision?
Great reasoning ability there, Alan.
You can still prefer Guiliani.. and maybe there’s an explanation for Fred Thompson’s apparent reversal and, possibly, lie.
But it’s not worth talking about? That’s rich.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:50 pmCome to think, Giuliani has lied pretty recently. At the May 3 debate, Chris Matthews asked Giuliani, “Why do you support the use of public funds for abortion?” Giuliani said, “I don’t.” That was a flat-out lie; he said on April 4 that he still favored public funding of abortion. Here’s the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18478985/page/8/
Alan (8d202d) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:52 pmI’m not saying Giuliani has never lied… I prefer Thompson thus far over him… but I have the honesty to look at people I support when they misspeak and ask myself if it was intentional or not.
And if it was, that makes a difference.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 7:57 pmI said it’s not worth taking this time to talk about whether Thompson is lying about how long he’s opposed Roe v. Wade. I didn’t say it’s not worth taking this time to talk about whether he’s lying about his current position. I see no evidence that he still favors Roe, and you have given none. Whatever one says about my reasoning abilities, they’re better than your reading ability.
I care about where the candidate stands now. If the candidate is lying about how long he’s held his current position, that’s not the same as lying about his current position. (In equating the two, you show you don’t have very good reasoning abilities yourself. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses?) I don’t care if Thompson has held his current view all his life or for 10 years. As long as he holds the right view now, I’m fine.
Thompson has a pro-life voting record, and I don’t see him putting more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the bench. I do see Giuliani doing that, because he’s recently, explicitly reaffirmed his agreement with Ginsburg on whether there’s a constitutional right to have an abortion.
There’s an absolute certainty that Giuliani is still pro-Roe. Even if I doubted that Thompson’s conversion was genuine, I think one should weigh a doubt against a certainty and say that Giuliani is definitely unacceptance and Thompson, at worst, possibly unacceptable.
Alan (8d202d) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:00 pmIf he’s lying about his past position, it does bring into question his current position.
But I wouldn’t support a candidate over just one issue or not. There’s also the question of whether he lies or not.
That by itself is important.
I agree with you about abortion being an important question… which is why I’m curious what Fred Thompson’s take would be on this and through it out for questions.
Still, to say it doesn’t matter is strange. Even if you support him and he becomes president, his character and willingness to lie for political gain still matters.
If only to understand his motivations.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:03 pm*threw
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:04 pmSo, let’s review:
Where the candidate stands on Roe v. Wade = critical to my decision. If the candidate lies about that, I have problems. If the candidate tells the truth about that and he’s pro-Roe, I appreciate his honesty, and I’ll never vote for him.
Whether the candidate has stood there all his life = not critical to my decision. Hell, I used to be a pro-Roe Democrat. I know the truth of what they say about the zeal of the convert. I don’t insist that someone have been on the right side of the issue all his life, and I don’t care if he lies about how long he’s been right, as long as I’m persuaded that he is right now.
And I don’t concede that Thompson lied to Hannity. Maybe he lied 13 years ago and is telling the truth now. Maybe he never lied but simply misspoke back then or forgot just now. Maybe it’s something else altogether. I don’t know, and I don’t really care. All I’ve decided is who wouldn’t get my vote at gunpoint. Right now, the only people on that list are Giuliani, McVain, Huckabee, and Switchback.
Alan (8d202d) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:05 pmReply to 17: I’m not voting against someone hwo might actually get that abomination overturned just because he said something that might be interpreted as dishonest. It would be nice to have a saint as president, but I’d rather see fewer abortions in this country.
Alan (8d202d) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:07 pmAlan, I agree with you on the relevant importance and merits… and I think it’s entirely possible Fred misspoke, was misquoted (although if that’s the case he was running for office at the time and would probably have corrected the record: did he? – I don’t know), or told a minor lie, or just forgot what he said way back when.
All of which is relevant for consideration.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:10 pmWell,
Odds are, the Democrats will control the Senate after the next election. There are 21 Republican Senators and only 12 Democrats up for re-election next year. No way another Roberts or Alito gets in.
I’d pick a candidate based on something that matters.
alphie (015011) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:12 pmalphie, you are a disgusting pig.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:15 pmalphie is a ‘disgusting pig’ link corrected
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:16 pmAh, for goodness sakes. I guess there’s no point in using the built in link functionality anymore. It is totally broken.
Since you upgraded it to add a description, it doesn’t work in Firefox.
HERE IS THE LINK
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:17 pmThompson didn’t lie 13 years ago, and he didn’t lie now. I don’t believe he ever told the Commercial Appeal that he supported Roe v Wade. Here’s the actual quote:
This is not a quote, it’s the reporter’s characterisation of his position. The reporter may well have been wrong. If he told the reporter that he thought states ought not to ban abortion in the first trimester, I can see how a not-very-well-informed reporter might summarise that as “he supports Roe“.
Milhouse (ef8775) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:32 pmChristoph,
I consider myself a conservative Republican and you consider yourself a conservative Republican.
I don’t think there’s a candidate that can win both our votes, do you?
alphie (015011) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:33 pmYou could be right, Milhouse, and thanks for providing the link. You’ve made your point and I tend to agree barring further citations.
alphie, I don’t give a damn what party you say you’re from or how “conservative” you claim to be.
I dislike you.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:42 pmPatterico, I feel about Giuliani more or less like you feel about McCain. If he gets the nomination, I will not vote for him, and will even seriously consider voting for the Democrat (especially if it’s someone half-way sane like Richardson).
Based on his record as US Attorney and then as mayor, I’m afraid that if he becomes president then all the crazy things the moonbats say about the dictatorship of Bushitler Chimphaliburton will come true. I honestly believe that he simply does not get the concept of civil liberties. He’s Janet Reno with a Republican label. And if you wouldn’t trust Reno with the powers of the USA PATRIOT Act, you shouldn’t trust Guiliani either.
Milhouse (ef8775) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:45 pmMoby, don’t you have some studio work to finish?
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:49 pmHa, I know you don’t like me, Christoph.
But you see what a problem Giuliani has.
He has to appeal to both of us to even have a shot at winning.
alphie (015011) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:02 pmAlphie – You have messes waiting to be cleaned up on other threads. Hop to it poo flinger.
daleyrocks (906622) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:11 pmjust sitting here marvelling, out of all the issues facing our country, here are some folks whose next vote for president will turn on which candidate is most committed to maintaining state control over a woman’s body.
lol@christoph for failed linkies, when i finally reached the one that worked, i discovered to no great surprise that christoph “hates the guts” of pro-choice people, of which i am one. is there a more common, unifying theme in christianity than that?
not at all concerned with the future of roe v. wade; if it gets overruled, i will enjoy watching the ensuing backlash which will destroy the republican party for good. be careful what you wish for, you idiots.
giuliani is the best of the republican frontrunners, but his authoritarian mayoral administration warns of an authoritarian presidency if he’s elected.
assistant devil's advocate (ca2e8d) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:42 pmI’m not a Christian, ada. This is an example of an incorrect stereotype of yours truly and you can retract it at any time.
I know many Christians who don’t hate abortionists and people who’ve contracted for abortions. It’s called forgiveness, hating the sin and not the sinner, etc. I know Christians who have had abortions. One is a close friend.
I hate him in particular because he’s so disgusting about it. Read this.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:48 pmHow does that differ from basing your vote on which candidate will uphold the sacred right to partially deliver an eighth-month fetus then crush its skull and vacuum out its brains?
JVW (b44a2c) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:48 pmAnd especially read this.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:50 pm“Guiliani does seemed to have chosen good people. He has a record of mostly hiring and standing by good people.
And he’s strong enough to fire ‘em when they need firing. This is a plus in an executive.”
Good people? Like Michael Chertoff and Bernard Kerik? Why weren’t those assholes ever fired?
What about policy? Is that NYC illegal alien sanctuary policy which flies in the face of the wimpy “deport the criminals first” one of those conservative ideas you guys are all for?
What about securing mexico city? He did such a great job on that one, I’m still laughing about he was, at the very least, smart enough to defraud the mexican govermment of millions of dollars without lifting a finger. Good one, Rude-boy.
Ron Paul is the only conservative you can trust. I don’t see any of you clowns attacking his voting record, instead opting for calling him crazy instead of addressing his views and his voting record. You opt for ad hominem in a desperate attempt to put a tin foil hat on everyone instead of thinking. Dumbasses, all of you Giuliani supporters.
Personally, I am ashamed by the “conservative” blogosphere because there should be some truth in advertising. The “conservative” candidates and their supporters are not conservatives at all when I see this crap.
Y’all are Fascists, with a capital F, meaning the corporatist, Mussolini-type Fascism. Shame on you. You deserve an Orwellian national ID card that your beloved leader Giuliani will bestow upon you when he is elected. The guy cannot even keep a wife; but you’d vote for him, freakin’ misanthropes.
Petty Bourgeois (d5b6de) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:54 pmok christoph, i acknowledge that i prematurely and incorrectly concluded that you were a christian. fair enough?
jvw, my vote doesn’t turn on which candidate is most committed to infanticide. this issue isn’t even in my top ten, and i regret how it has damaged our country by distorting and frequently monopolizing the discussion. pro-choice people aren’t necessarily pro-infanticide; some of us just don’t think we possess enough moral authority/omniscience/self-righteousness to invade a doctor’s office and dictate terms to the doctor and the pregnant patient. figuring out the right thing to do for myself to keep my own conscience at bay consumes so much energy, i have nothing left with which to mind your morals for you; you’re on your own.
assistant devil's advocate (ca2e8d) — 7/16/2007 @ 10:39 pmMussolini was a corporatist? Who knew?
I thought he was for government control of businesses and actually largely achieved that in Italy.
Petty Bourgeois, is that your definition of Corporatist? If it is, you are pretty mixed up in your thinking about conservatives. I suggest a brain douche and a fresh start.
daleyrocks (906622) — 7/16/2007 @ 10:45 pmThank you.
Based on extensive personal experience, I also said:
… based on you referring to Christians universally disliking pro-choice people saying:
Here is the other place you were mistaken. This is the incorrect stereotype you should retract.
Christians, like non-Christians, are not monolithic in their views. You should correct this statement or add a qualifier.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 10:53 pmDaleyrocks:
Yes, he was.
Yes, it pretty much is. There’s more to fascism than just the corporate state, but it is a central feature. Now, what did you think corporatism means? “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Milhouse (ef8775) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:06 pmI think daleyrocks is confusing your usage of the term “corporatist”, which, I admit, I’ve never heard before, with laissez faire capitalism and the the corporation entitled to its own rights.
Of course, what you mean is keeping corporations intact, but subjecting them to government control á la fascism.
And other than the difference in definitions, I think you actually agree.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:09 pmMilhouse – Are you and Petty Bourgeois sock puppets? My question was addressed to Petty, but I’m happy to have you intrude. The word Corporatist must have a common meaning on the left. Christoph correctly guesses my difficulty with Petty’s use of the term in describing conservatives.
Milhouse – How many conservatives do you see advocating government control of corporations and their activities, essentially a centralized economy. It isn’t part of the conservative philosophy, sorry to disappoint you.
daleyrocks (906622) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:24 pmFascism is in many respects a modified form of leftism.
Extreme government intervention in the economy, private property, and individual liberties.
The traditional distinction between left and right is a bit of a misnomer. It’s more helpful to think of it is a circle, similar to a clock.
Fascism is at 1 o’clock and communism at 11:30. John McCain is at 6 and Patterico is at 3:15. I’m at 3:30. alphie is at 4:30 and Leviticus is at 2:30.
Something like that.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:31 pmSorry, my analogy was way off.
I meant alphie is at 8:30 and Leviticus at 10:30.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:33 pmada, so there are no misunderstandings, I am not a Christian as I explained clearly in this link, but I do believe in God.
I just believe our Creator is beyond my immediate comprehension. I also believe He/She/It is so much greater than the bible would give credit for.
I can’t believe God cares whether we touch ourselves, for example, or our best friend, Bruce. (I don’t have a friend Bruce lest anyone misunderstand… I much prefer Marys and Sallys).
I think God DOES care, though, whether we rape, or kill.
So in that sense, maybe I wasn’t being totally candid when I answered I’m not a Christian.
I’m not… but that doesn’t mean I’m not religious.
All that said, I know atheists who have a set of morals. I used to be an atheist and I had morals, however flawed they might have been.
Heck, I was a lot more pure then than now.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:38 pmFinal, final thought…
When I grew up, I was a committed atheist. I disliked Christianity and considered it absurd, logically.
Evolution and pure physics were my beliefs.
Yet I always considered abortion murder and strongly so. I had arguments with my teachers about it and caused at least one to cry in front of our class in grade 9.
How do you explain that?
Much later, I had an epiphany and knew there was a God as much as I didn’t understand the details.
Tonight, a moment ago, was another such epiphany where I was reminded of God’s presence. Laugh if you will.
Some things are true whether one believes in them or not.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:44 pmChristoph – I also sounds like some of our visitors are infected with the “I just read a book” or “I just took a course” virus related ideas such as corporativism, which has morphed from its original social sciences roots into today’s more pejorative connotations in everyday usage. It’s often unclear what usage people are attempting when trying to impress others on a blog, when often they are just parroting talking points they heard elsewhere that are really not applicable or just flat out wrong.
daleyrocks (906622) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:44 pmI consider myself King of the Universe! Thanks, alphie. That was pretty damned funny.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/17/2007 @ 4:08 amChristoph (#42):
Then you shouldn’t comment on it without looking it up.
No, I don’t mean anything of the kind. Corporatism has nothing to do with corporations. The corporate state is the defining feature of fascism, but it has nothing to do with Halliburton, or even Enron. As I quoted to Daleyrocks, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Daleyrocks (#43):
Intrude? It’s a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation with Petty Bourgeois, take it to email.
No, it has a specific meaning in the English language, whether left or right. Petty Bourgeois used it correctly; you are not. And I don’t know why you think either of us is on the left.
Um, when did he do that? He used it of Giuliani’s supporters.
And where did I suggest it was?
Christoph (#44):
That is completely the wrong way to look at it. The distinction is nothing like a clock. Your analogy implies that fascism and communism are independent philosophies converging on the same point from opposite directions. That was not the case. Fascism was a Marxist heresy; Mussolini was one of Europe’s leading socialist intellectuals, until he decided to support Italy in World War I. The similarities between fascism and communism are no marvel of convergent evolution, but the result of their shared ancestry.
Milhouse (ef8775) — 7/17/2007 @ 8:06 amMilhouse – Where’s Petty today. Corporatist/Corporativism has had many different meanings over time and in many different context. It continues to have different meanings in different contexts. Do a little research. You haven’t pointed out the context to which you are referring, but seem to be using it pejoratively.
Mussolini advocated central control of the economy, which conservatives do not. Schools of corporotavist thought argued that corporations secretly contolled the government. Conservatives don’t argue this either. Are either of these dishonest positions the ones you mean? Which “specific” meaning do you claim and which one do you, in your reply on Petty’s behalf, agree applies to conservatives?
daleyrocks (906622) — 7/17/2007 @ 11:23 amRudy Giuliani or Vampire Ghouliani?
alec (7fe80c) — 7/17/2007 @ 11:46 amI’m here. Unfortunately I have to work for a living and don’t have unlimited amounts of time to spar with “conservatives.”
Yes, I am a student of both Fascism (capital “F,” see Giovanni Gentile, philosopher of Fascism) and pardigmatic fascism (small “f”). My usage of the term was correct. Corporations like Olivetti supported Mussolini and were all too willing to help with bringing Italy out of the shadows and the citizenry to march in lock-step with the party line. Fascism does not deserve such harsh words by the leftist intelligentsia, since it was a variant of Hegelian theory, but it is contrary to liberty as we know it. Hitler did not like Mussolini, because he was married to a jew.
My corporatist definition and usage still stands as being correct. You can line up for your national ID card made by Diebold so you can vote on your Diebold voting machine after Rudy gets elected, “conservatives.”
Petty Bourgeois (d5b6de) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:36 pm