Message to Religious Conservatives: Giuliani Would Appoint Solid Supreme Court Justices
It took Nixon to go to China. It took Bill Clinton, a Democrat, to get control of the federal deficit. (Sorry, conservatives, but it’s true.) And it might take Rudy Giuliani to appoint solid Supreme Court Justices.
With Fred Thompson out of the race, judicial conservatives are looking for a candidate. John McCain? Three words: Gang of 14. Mike Huckabee? He’ll never be President. Mitt Romney? Ehhhh . . . he might be OK — but I think he comes across to voters as too slick and unprincipled. And there may be a reason for that.
But there’s no reason, in my judgment, to question Rudy Giuliani on the issue of judges. This is the argument made in a September 2007 New York Times op-ed piece that I think is worth resurrecting with Thompson’s exit. The op-ed was written at a time when Giuliani was looking much stronger in the polls, but the substance of the op-ed still holds:
I think Mr. Giuliani will be the most effective advocate for the pro-life cause precisely because he is unreligious and a supporter of abortion rights.
The author makes a very persuasive case:
In a televised Republican debate, Mr. Giuliani said it would be “O.K.” if Roe were overturned but “O.K. also” if the Supreme Court viewed it as a binding precedent. Despite this ambivalence, Mr. Giuliani promises to nominate judges who are “strict constructionists.” His campaign Web site explains: “It is the responsibility of the people and their representatives to make laws. It is the role of judges to apply those laws, not to amend our Constitution without the consent of the American people.”
Roe v. Wade, with no textual warrant in the Constitution, struck down the states’ democratically enacted restrictions on abortion. By fighting Roe, pro-lifers aim not to make abortion illegal by judicial fiat, but to return the decision about how to regulate abortion to the states, where we are confident we can win.
Our greatest obstacle is the popular belief that overturning Roe would automatically make abortion illegal everywhere. In fact, our goal may well be undermined by politicians like President Bush, who seem to use “strict constructionist” as nothing more than code for “anti-abortion.”
Only a constitutionalist who supports abortion rights can create an anti-Roe majority by explaining that the end of Roe means letting the people decide, state by state, about abortion.
Mr. Giuliani’s ambivalence about the end of Roe is consistent with his belief that judges should not seek to achieve political ends. This is a judicial philosophy that pro-lifers should applaud, not condemn. It is, after all, the position consistently articulated by the pro-life movement’s favorite Supreme Court justices: John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
Indeed.
I am ambivalent about abortion myself. I’m not confident that abortion is “murder” from the very moment of conception. But I think the inflexible law created by the Supreme Court has created a set of rules that allow abortions too late, for flimsy or nonexistent justifications.
But regardless of your personal view, we should all be able to agree that the issue should be decided by We the People and not nine lawyers wearing robes.
I think Rudy believes that. Last time I checked, Rudy’s advisory committee was people with folks I respect and trust on this issue, like Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada. These are not weak-kneed adherents of a living Constitution, and I don’t think Rudy is either.
Mr. Giuliani makes the same arguments that we pro-lifers make. But he can be more persuasive because he will not be perceived as trying to advance his own religious preferences. By taking the side of pro-lifers for democratic, but not devout, motives, a President Giuliani could shake up the nearly 35-year-old debate over Roe v. Wade.
I agree. I think Rudy could make that happen — if only Republicans would allow him to be the nominee.
Threads like this tend to devolve in a free-for all debate about abortion. Please try to stay on topic, addressing the issue of who would be the best candidate for the Supreme Court.
Romney has a strong religious background, as we all know. He governed as a strong pro-life person. He, personally has always been pro-life, but has respected other people’s personal views on this subject. His view on this policy issue changed while he was Governor, and he feels it is appropriate to support the pro-life side of the issue.
Mike M (e78fbb) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:11 amI totally agree. While I like Fred, it’s as though he ran just to curtail a lot of the hawks from Rudy, and help the other hawk, Mccain, succeed (Fred’s been chairman of Mccain’s campaigns before and frankly was bizarre in his refusal to criticize Mccain).
I really liked Fred. Why? He didn’t just parrot the principles. He understood, elaborated, explained them. Giuliani is the only other guy who really seems to have a consistent thought process that he applies. He doesn’t lie and pander as much as others. He’s explained his principles for appointing Scalias and Robertses. I believe he is telling the truth. He has a legal mind, and isn’t going to be fooled by a Harriet Meyers of Stevens style fake.
And Giuliani can lead in tough situations when surrounded by hostile democrats. Bush had it easy in Texas, Romney was a democrat for all intents and purposes until his rebirth. Huck still is a dem. Can Mccain lead against Dems? No. He bends very easily to get along.
I am confident Giuliani understands the war like Mccain, but is unwilling to abuse conservatives with bizarre judicial deals like Mccain would.
I have no idea what kind of idiots Huck would appoint. Romney is probably ok, but he either dramatically misrepresented himself to Mass or is misrepresenting himself now.
Rudy has made errors in his decisions, such as with Chertoff, but I think this is the exception that proves the rule.
Fred heads want a lot of things. They want to win in Iraq, they want to cut spending, they want to get more solid justices (maybe 3!), they want to win the general election. Rudy is the best man for these jobs. He is not pro-life, but this is irrelevant in that he doesn’t write the law. It’s most relevant in that it proves he tells us the truth. We can rely on his promise to nominate some decent constitution reading Justices.
That Chemerinsky hornbook is way too thick. It’s time we started taking the constitution more seriously, amending if we need to change it, and relying on states to decide issues like abortion.
Jem (82b828) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:12 amMike M, what makes you think Romney has a strong religious background? The fact that Huck attacks his religious doesn’t really prove that. I know few Mormons that would have taken strident pro-choice positions and forcefully argued for them repeatedly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
Now, in your heart, you know damn well he was pro-choice because you have to be in Mass. He was altering his view on such a fundamentally ethics oriented issue… for expediency. Arguing that he didn’t mean it then isn’t enough of an explanation for me.
Romney is a very smart man, and a very good leader. I like him. But I know, in my gut, he will move around when expedient. Like when he’s debating Hillary or dealing with the media and congressional pressure a GOP prez must face. Bush has done one thing right: he has ignored polls and done what he thought best. I don’t see that in Romney, and that’s a big problem. Mccain’s obnoxious, but at least I think he’s following his conscience. Rudy is bravely running as a pro-choice candidate. That’s amazing to me.
Jem (82b828) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:17 amThe best candidate for the Supreme Court? Robert Bork.
Old Coot (206b3f) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:20 amHuckabee would be the best choice for Supreme Court appointments. As for his electability, *they* were saying the same thing about Reagan in 1980. Gerald Ford: “No one to the right of me can be elected President”.
As for Giuliani, I see nothing that makes me trust that he will not use his authority whimsically and self-indulgently. Nothing to indicate that it’s not always about only him. Perhaps his explicit promises can be trusted — even the worst people sometimes keep their word — but otherwise he is no prince I would put faith in.
nk (9ce1c0) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:40 amI’d vote for Rudy however I don’t think Rudy’s going to last much longer, like Fred he is too strong a candidate for the Republican establishment which is gunning for the Liberal guy.
Romney has the money to beat the Republican establishment and offers just enough government handouts to please moderates/independents so I’d place my bet on him.
So long as people in the Church continue voting for pro-choice politicans then what difference does it make that Rudy is pro-choice; I mean a black minister in the Methodist Church is endorsing a black politician who voted to continue the practice of partical-birth abortion?
Further, how can there be law and order in this country if those within the Church think it’s prefectly acceptable to break the laws of the land because we’re all God’s children?
All in all though the religious ones I fear most are the Environmental Religious; creepy cultists whose faithful believe in doing really evil things.
syn (79aece) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:44 amnk, Huckabee did enrich himself with bribe-like gifts as governer, right? Giuliani didn’t do that, though he did have his mistress driven around by cops.
Surely you acknowledge that Rudy is more electable than Huckabeee, though I respect you not basing your vote on something like that. But why would Huck be the best choice for supreme court appointments? Has he ever demonstrated a great command of legal concepts such a textualism? Huck seems to care about bizarre things, like religious assertions, as symbols of character. I think Huck would appoint Harriet Miers-like folks. People who are baptists and lack merit.
Anyway, just wondering, is there some kind of argument behind your bald assertion? I say we can trust Rudy because he has admitted to holding an unpopular view. Rudy also successfully overcame a lot of flack from dems in NYC.
When did Huck overcome intense Democrat pressure? Seems like he either caved or agreed with dem demands in Arkansas, and we all know how much pressure a GOP prez would be under, especially for supreme court justices.
Jem (82b828) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:50 amYeah sure he will let him get elected and watch him break all this promises
krazy kagu (0a3548) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:59 amIt’s an interesting argument, but I’m still somewhat skeptical. In response to this sentence from the article:
I’d point out that as mayor, Giuliani was not above using the judicial system for political ends. Recall his lawsuits against the gun industry, still ongoing. He sued the government to have line-item veto struck down, ultimately succeeding. Etc.
NYC 3L (625631) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:59 amJem,
As Mayor of New York, Rudi behaved just as Stalin would have. Before that, as a federal prosecutor, he had imitated Torquemada. Then there’s the way he threw the Senate race to Hillary.
I say we can trust Rudy because he has admitted to holding an unpopular view.
“I believe that the right to vote should be restricted to white men of property over the age of 35.” You can trust me to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will decide the exact opposite because I’m being honest with you with my unpopular view.
Regarding Huckabee, I was not aware of the bribes. I have no problem with his tax/spend policies in Arkansas. There’s nothing wrong with him wanting Arkansas’s infrastructure to be the best in the nation. In any case, I am not yet a Huckabee supporter. I am simply not convinced of all the extremely nebulous negatives floated about him.
nk (9ce1c0) — 1/23/2008 @ 8:05 amNice analysis. I tend to agree with most of it. I read something a couple of years ago in which some pundit examined the abortion issue. His take was that Roe v Wade had done more damage to the Dems than the GOP because it gave the GOP a real “moral” issue to put on the agenda which stoked a lot of emotion amongst voters and fueled much of the move toward the 94 elections.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 1/23/2008 @ 8:12 amI’d love to see the Roe v Wade overturned and pushed back to the states where it belongs. If an amendment is needed let it go through the process as it is supposed to.
But for the GOP it leaves it without a unifying issue that many conservatives will rally around. Giving up that unifier may be something the base is unwilling to do.
One more rare occasion when we agree, VOR #11. (Hope you don’t feel too bad about it.) Abortion has been used shamelessly as a political football by both the left and the right.
nk (9ce1c0) — 1/23/2008 @ 8:22 amDamn. Now I need to apologize to Patterico. I’m sorry that I helped VOR change the discussion to abortion despite your request, Patterico
nk (9ce1c0) — 1/23/2008 @ 8:26 amNk,
The point wasn’t to change the discussion, to make the point required mentioning it. Remove it as a central issue and Rudy becomes far less radioactive to the party base (imo).
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 1/23/2008 @ 8:50 amI’ve been for Rudy since he started his campaign mostly because of his stance on what kind of judges he would pick.
Fair enough, VOR. Let’s just hope that our fellow commenters will feel the same. In any case, we still agree on the central issue. A shameful political football.
nk (9ce1c0) — 1/23/2008 @ 9:02 amI have very little faith in Rudy’s support for state rights. If he appoints pro-life judges it’ll be for stricktly political reasons.
joe (066362) — 1/23/2008 @ 9:03 amhis mayoral administration had an offputting aura of authoritarian statism about it, which repels me.
assistant devil's advocate (0629f4) — 1/23/2008 @ 9:18 amWith all due respect, ADA, you do not get that aura from Hillary Clinton? I’ll take Hizzoner’s warts and all, over a person who has written an entire book suggesting she knows what is best for me, better than I do!
Just my read on it.
Eric Blair (2708f4) — 1/23/2008 @ 9:33 amYeah, uh huh, right. And why should I particularly trust that he’ll keep the word he made when campaigning for president once he actually became president? Heck, even the Presidents I did trust came up with Anthony Kennedy and David Souter.
Dana (3e4784) — 1/23/2008 @ 10:14 amAs for Senator McCain, it seems amazing to me that a man who could endure years of captivity by the North Vietnamese without surrendering was so willing to snatch compromise out of the jaws of victory with the Gang of 14.
Dana (3e4784) — 1/23/2008 @ 10:17 amThis former Fredhead is moving to Rudy.
rhodeymark (4f2403) — 1/23/2008 @ 10:17 amInteresting how you describe Mitt. I don’t care for him in the least but then again I have hardly listened to him,I admit. Because frankly he comes off as a used car salesman.
With Fred and Duncan out of the game… I have not yet decided whom to throw my bra to. But you make a very valid argument for Rudy, whom I had brushed off in the last few months because his campaign is as fun to watch as paint drying.
Very interesting take on Rudy, thanks for the perspective may make me look at him further.
Jenn (e877f5) — 1/23/2008 @ 10:32 amRudy is a terrible candidate.
If Obama is nominated to run against him he’ll be absolutely slaughtered. Rudy is terrible on immigration, terrible on social issues and has lots of personal issues that WILL be brought up.
This Fredhead is no longer going to be affiliated with the GOP. The party has no interest in electing conservatives, so this conservative is going to look elsewhere. Third party, ho!
h2u (81b7bd) — 1/23/2008 @ 10:39 amPatterico, It took a Conservative Congress to get control of the federal deficit, not Bill Clinton.
Your essay thus has zero credibility.
AL (d01973) — 1/23/2008 @ 10:52 am“But there’s no reason, in my judgment, to question Rudy Giuliani on the issue of judges.”
What about the fact that he has spent his career appointing liberal judges and trying to get judges to make policy?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2957.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDRmZDk4M2JjNDg3ODE1NmIwY2NhZmViZWU2NGJhYmQ=
So far as I know, he has never repudiated his views on these matters. That seems like a pretty good reason to question him on the issue of judges, whatever he may now say about “strict constructionists.”
I doubt very much Rudy has any clear idea about what the issues are regarding the proper role of the courts; like any good liberal, he simply assumes that the courts are there to enact his policies into law without the support of the people or their representatives.
Rudy’s been told what he needs to say to get conservatives to support him. And it seems to be working.
ScottM (eb98c5) — 1/23/2008 @ 10:56 amPatterico,
A dumb(?) q from the ether: Wouldn’t overturning RvW make it harder to ban abortion rather than easier?
People are far more mobile now than ever before and crossing a state line means nothing; thousands do it as part of their daily commute in various locales.
So if abortion returns to the states, all it would take is for one or two of them – or more likely a larger number – to still allow it in order to make it widely available, correct? And it’s gotta be much harder to get all 50 states to agree to ban it than to get one national govt to do so.
Am I missing something here? Has symbolism trumped tactics?
ras (fc54bb) — 1/23/2008 @ 11:05 amI happen to think Ramesh isn’t one to cite at NRO, but YMMV. The Politico? No thanks. I know Rudy’s record isn’t perfect in trying to get his thing done in NYC, but I don’t see a lot of critical examination of Romney’s MA record over at NRO either. The question for me is – which one will FLOP? They have both flipped if you care to read the policy pages:
rhodeymark (6797b5) — 1/23/2008 @ 11:07 amhttp://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/
I just happen to believe Rudy more.
Jem wrote: I really liked Fred. Why? He didn’t just parrot the principles. He understood, elaborated, explained them.
Ditto. Fred was just hitting his stride as money and time ran out on him. The “fire in the belly” many of us were looking for finally emerged when he unloaded on Huckabee’s Dem-like record, but by that time, Huck’s traveling salvation show had taken center stage, and it took more than that to stop its momentum. McCain’s MSM-aided surge victories have finally done the trick, but too late for Fred to pick up the slack; he didn’t appear electable. The problem with Fred is that he isn’t fast on his feet — that is to say, he doesn’t speak in sound bytes. He really needed to be better prepared.
Like it or not, here in 21st Century America, it’s not enough to be the best-qualified. There is a homecoming king and/or queen element to electing a POTUS now.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 1/23/2008 @ 11:10 amInteresting thread.
I think the weak point in the argument is the comparison with the other candidates. I fail to see how Rudy would make better appointments than Romney. The others, maybe.
So the argument is that he may not be as bad as we thought, not that he would be best.
There is no substitute for Fred. We’re going to get another Bush Sr., at least from a social conservative point of view. I think Rudy’s contunied support for abortion is a fatal flaw but that’s another subject.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 1/23/2008 @ 11:13 amras, I despise abortion. I truly do. But I don’t see a problem with allowing some states to allow it and others to disallow it. If a resident of an anti-abortion state wanted an abortion, let them go to a pro-abortion state to get one.
It’s an issue, like gay marriage, that should be decided at the state level. That’s my only position on the matter.
Ugh.
I’m tired of this “fire in the belly” mantra that makes NO sense. Fred! is the kinda guy we should want as President. He didn’t want the job so much as he offered himself up for it. He didn’t campaign so much as he stated his beliefs.
Fred! dropped out because the GOP is no longer a party of conservatives. It’s a party of shameless, pandering buffoons. That’s why a schmuck like Huckabee won Iowa. That’s why McCain is currently the frontrunner.
The Republican party is a joke and I’m no longer going to be party to the punchline.
h2u (81b7bd) — 1/23/2008 @ 11:19 amnk said:
I am not a fan of Giuliani’s, but it seems possible to me that these comparison’s aren’t quite apposite. I mean, I know Rudy as a prosecutor had thousands of heretics tortured, and I’m sure he had his political opponents executed en masse as mayor, but it still seems like it might be a touch of an overreach here.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 1/23/2008 @ 11:41 amh2u,
Thx for the reply, but my q is one of tactics: doesn’t overturning RvW make it more, not less likely, that abortion would continue much as it is today?
I am working from the presumption that most anti-ab’s are looking to end its prevalence in the US (with varying cutoff dates re the baby’s in-womb development; that’s another story) rather than to zone it to specific states.
So for all who are opposed to abortion, and heck, for all who aren’t, too: wouldn’t overturning RvW, per my orig arg above, accomplish pretty much the opposite of what the anti-ab groups actually want?
ras (fc54bb) — 1/23/2008 @ 11:54 amThis would be a great argument is abortion were Rudy’s only weak spot. Fact is, he is a complete liberal on pretty much all social issues and he has been extremely anti second amendment. And let’s not forget his weakness on illegal immigration either. He is no closer to being a true conservative than McCain or Huckabee. They are just all liberal on different issues with the exception of illegal immigration where they are all weak.
Romney may or may not be more conservative depending on how much he believes what he is saying. But he is the closest thing to a conservative in this field full of RINOs.
n2sooners (72106e) — 1/23/2008 @ 11:56 amAnd there’s a problem with that?
😉
Horatio (a549f7) — 1/23/2008 @ 12:20 pmh2u wrote: I’m tired of this “fire in the belly” mantra that makes NO sense. Fred! is the kinda guy we should want as President.
Yeah, kind of like the way we should all want to eat healthy and exercise. Wake up and smell the coffee, bacon, donuts, and sausage.
He didn’t want the job so much as he offered himself up for it. He didn’t campaign so much as he stated his beliefs.
Can you name any people historically recognized as great elected heads of state who failed make the case that s/he was the solitary candidate qualified to lead the nation? I cannot. And every four years, contenders have to deal with pretenders who know they are NEVER going to win (hello, Dr. Dennis Ron Tom Alan Kucinich Paul Tancredo Keyes). Fred seemed to be brought into the race kicking and screaming, teasing conservatives since early 2007, but never making the leap. When he finally got moving, he did so at a snail’s pace. His laundry list of Huckabee’s gubernatorial legacy was the first instance I saw in which he was saying — directly or indirectly — “Nobody can do the job better than I can.”
The Republican party is a joke and I’m no longer going to be party to the punchline.
Suit yourself, but never forget: This is a two-party system and has always been. Check the National Archives: There has never been a situation in which a third party has become viable before one of the dominant two completely disintegrates.
The Republican Party only became a force because the Whigs completely vanished within two Presidential elections. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican to win the White House, but — contrary to popular belief — was not the first candidate. That was John Charles Fremont, who lost in 1856 to James Buchanan, one of the least-regarded Chief Executives ever. Buchanan’s failure led Americans to the Republicans and Lincoln, who lost the race for Senate in Illinois to Stephen Douglas, but became a national figure in the famous series of debates.
I don’t have to tell you what happened to the Reform Party, do you?
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 1/23/2008 @ 1:13 pmI meant, “do I.”
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 1/23/2008 @ 1:13 pm26
“So if abortion returns to the states, all it would take is for one or two of them – or more likely a larger number – to still allow it in order to make it widely available, correct? And it’s gotta be much harder to get all 50 states to agree to ban it than to get one national govt to do so.”
Sure if you are rich you could get an abortion in a state which allowed them. But even with a national ban if you are rich you could get an abortion in Canada or Japan.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 1/23/2008 @ 1:29 pmI’d like to know who all of these guys are thinking about creating a cabinet with? As in the potential who’s that will have the ear of POTUS and thus become the information feeders to him.
Personally I’m not sure if any of the candidates today could name more than one or two eligible names for a SCOUTS position. Such will be fed to them by others.
It’s not like there is a grading system and public data base they can pick the high scorer from. JohnQ P continues to learn more about where judges come from and that process is much more who you know vs what you know. So it becomes a crap shoot to getting a good one.
As a side; I think that very few states would ban abortion if RvW was overturned. No matter their personal morays on the subject, most women view having the choice to do so as almost a Right!
TC (1cf350) — 1/23/2008 @ 1:33 pmAs for Patterico’s question the real issue is not who would appoint the best judges but who could get the best judges past what is likely to be a Democratic Senate. Personally I think the smart move there would be to appoint judges who were ok with Roe vrs Wade but conservative on everything else.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 1/23/2008 @ 1:35 pmJames B. Shearer,
Sure if you are rich you could get an abortion …
The cost of driving to another state is not prohibitive and many people who are not “rich” do so on a regular basis, as do many “poor” people, too.
Moreover, your reply dodges my q, which I will repeat: is it a tactically counterproductive move, from the pt of view of the anti-abortion groups, to want RvW overturned with the law regarding it to become a state matter rather than a federal one?
ras (fc54bb) — 1/23/2008 @ 1:53 pmTC, I think the states would regulate abortion in wildly different ways. Sure, most would not ban it, but some would impose waiting periods, adoption counseling, parental notification, while others would permit partial birth abortion.
It would move this debate from the one of absolute right to choose to the specifics of this grotesque practice (just my opinion, but abortion bothers the hell out of me).
There is no getting rid of abortion. We’ve got too small a world, and you can get a boat or go to Mexico or Toronto. But 1 in 5 kids are aborted. We can at least make abortion rare and publically condemned, it somewhat available.
some of the response I got was idiotic demonization of Rudy. Look, of course Rudy ain’t the perfect candidate. He’s just a lot better than the more transparently dishonest Huck and Romney, and the enemy of conservatives, Mccain. I would seriously pause if George W were back on the ticket. That’s how bad our choices are this round. But for Iraq, I would gladly let Hillary win and hope her excesses got the GOP’s mojo back. But we really need to find the best Iraq guy (and supreme court choosing guy). I trust Giuliani to do as he said he would. It’s not as good as agreeing with him on everything, but it’s all I got.
A big part of the equation is the power of the republicans online to raise a lot of hell. Reagan and Bush 41 appointed with mixed results. Bush 43 would have happily done the same, but for the massive informed outcry. Giuliani and the others will face the same. The supreme court isn’t a bargaining chip, we know it, and they have to deal with us.
Jem (82b828) — 1/23/2008 @ 1:55 pmYes, you’re probably right. But to strict conservatives — and not pro-life religious folk — it’s more important to enforce the rights of states than it is to get up on that moral high-ground.
As I said, I hate abortion. But I went to school at UC Santa Cruz and know far too many women who would crucify me for saying that. I have no right to tell someone what to do with their unborn child. But I do have a right to say what part of our gov’t should decide the legality of it. And that would be the State, not the Fed.
And yet some of us, like myself, do eat healthy and exercise plenty. Why should we pander to those who don’t take care of themselves? A little personal responsibility goes a long way.
Nonsense. Fred! entered the race on his own terms and left on his own terms. He didn’t pander; he didn’t appear overzealous; and he didn’t let the media dictate the terms of his candidacy. You cannot ask for more from a decent man. And a decent man is what we should expect from our president.
And absence of proof dictates proof of absence? Ha! Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it can’t ever happen.
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/23/2008 @ 2:22 pm40
“Moreover, your reply dodges my q, which I will repeat: is it a tactically counterproductive move, from the pt of view of the anti-abortion groups, to want RvW overturned with the law regarding it to become a state matter rather than a federal one?”
Only from an all or nothing point of view. A national ban is unlikely but some states would be much more restrictive if it were up to them.
James B. Shearer (de70a3) — 1/23/2008 @ 2:56 pmH2U,
A fair answer and one I would agree with, for what that’s worth, anyway.
But it raises a q: are the anti-abortion groups who are fighting to overturn RvW aware that their victory would further entrench abortion access rather than restrict it?
If they are, and are fighting on behalf of federalist principles – a la your own position – no prob. But if their higher of the two goals is to limit abortion, then they are actively undermining themselves.
So too are the pro-abortion groups who want to keep RvW in place and have abortion be a federal matter, as all it then takes is one decision in one place to change the law in all 50 states.
Surreal. As I said to Patterico, mayhaps symbolism has trumped tactics (and better judgement) on both sides.
ras (fc54bb) — 1/23/2008 @ 2:58 pmJames B.Shearer,
Only from an all or nothing point of view.
The ease of crossing a state line obviates your argument, tho, does it not? What matter if your state bans it altogether if one can hop a bus for a coupla hours to where the law is different?
ras (fc54bb) — 1/23/2008 @ 3:01 pmPatterico, are you playing a joke on all of your conservative readers? How can you possibly give any credence to this idea that Giuliani will even consider appointing judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade?
Does it mean nothing to you that Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who has spent this entire campaign without even once saying that Roe was wrongly decided?
Does it mean nothing to you that Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who has spent this entire campaign refusing to answer the very simple question whether Roe should be overturned?
Does it mean nothing to you that, in April of last year, while he was already a declared candidate for president, Giuliani said abortion is “a constitutional right”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZe1j4csMq8
Does it mean nothing to you that when George Will asked Giuliani, “Do you think Roe v. Wade was good constitutional law,” Giuliani said yes? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
Does it mean nothing to you that Giuliani has openly lied about whether he supports taxpayer funding for abortion? (He said, “I don’t” support it, just one month after saying he still supported it.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1EN8u9AI64
Patterico, with all due respect, you’ve got your head deep in the sand when it comes to Giuliani. Giuliani is by far the least likely candidate to pick anti-Roe justices. As for this supposedly wonderful advisory committee he has, bear in mind who who’ll ultimately make the call when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. That would be Giuliani, if (G-d forbid) he becomes president. And for anyone who wants Roe v. Wade overturned, that should be absolutely terrifying.
Alan (78d614) — 1/23/2008 @ 3:03 pmBy the way, Patterico, from a constitutionalist’s perspective, Giuliani’s advisory committee is not a good one.
First of all, what is with this conservative love of Miguel Estrada? Estrada thinks United States v. Lopez was wrongly decided. http://www.confirmthem.com/confirmation_wars_by_benjamin_wittes I don’t want that man advising a president on judicial nominations if he can’t support such an obviously correct decision as that.
As for the others, I’ll just quote Matt Bowman of the American Spectator, exposing just how bad Giuliani’s advisory committee is, unbeknownst to conservatives for no reason I can imagine:
“Giuliani also advertises the conservatism of his Justice Advisory Committee. An examination of the committee’s all-stars shows it may instead be a magnet for social liberals.
“Professor Charles Fried has opposed overturning Roe. Pro-life groups have been hostile to the new Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a prominent committee member, while liberal court activists have warmed up to him. Supreme Court papabile Miguel Estrada and Maureen Mahoney are judicial but not social conservatives, according to renowned Supreme Court insider Jan Crawford Greenberg, who says that President Bush’s advisors didn’t consider Mahoney for the high court because ‘they didn’t believe she was conservative enough.’ Committee chairman Ted Olson seems to spend a lot of his time insisting that Giuliani’s judicial conservatism ‘doesn’t mean overturning Roe is part of that agenda.’ Professor Steven Calabresi is reportedly participating in the committee despite, not because of, his own opposition to abortion.”
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12563
Patterico, why would you–or ANYone–“respect and trust” these people?
Alan (78d614) — 1/23/2008 @ 3:10 pmAlan, the answer to your questions is in the post:
His specific position on abortion is irrelevant to that fundamental view of the judiciary. Judges that meet that standard would return the question to the states, where it belongs.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/23/2008 @ 3:13 pmPablo, Giuliani said that abortion is “a constitutional right.” Don’t you dare tell me that that’s “irrelevant to that fundamental view of the judiciary.”
And Giuliani refuses to say explicitly and simply whether Roe were correctly decided, let alone whether it should be overruled. If you think that says nothing about what kind of justices he’ll appoint, then you are simply blind.
Alan (aebeab) — 1/23/2008 @ 3:25 pmSome reasons for my “idiotic demonizing” of Giuliani:
As a U.S. attorney in the 1980s, Giuliani conducted what University of Chicago Law Prof. Daniel Fischel called a “reign of terror” against Wall Street. He pioneered the use of the midday, televised “perp walk” for white-collar defendants who posed no threat to the community – precisely the sort of power play for which conservatives reviled former state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. And Giuliani’s use of federal racketeering statutes was so disturbing that the Justice Department changed its guidelines on the law.
As mayor, Giuliani had many successes. Crime came down. He cut taxes and held down spending. But his prosecutorial personality sometimes threatened personal freedoms. He cracked down on jaywalkers and street vendors. His street crime unit used aggressive tactics to confiscate guns from city residents, resulting in wholesale searches and detentions of citizens, especially young minority males, and occasional tragedies like the shooting of the unarmed Amadou Diallo.
When a police officer fatally shot another unarmed black man, Patrick Dorismond, Giuliani had police release Dorismond’s sealed juvenile arrest record. The city later settled with Dorismond’s family for $2.25 million.
And it should distress many conservatives that Giuliani took umbrage at affronts to his dignity, perhaps most notoriously when he tried to stop city buses from carrying a New York magazine ad saying the publication was “possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for.” The First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams notes in his book, “Speaking Freely,” that “over 35 separate successful lawsuits were brought against the city under Giuliani’s stewardship arising out of his insistence on doing the one thing that the First Amendment most clearly forbids: using the power of government to restrict or punish speech critical of government itself.”
But that’s not the basic reason I would never vote for him for President. My threshold question is: “If I were to die, would I trust this person to raise my daughter?” In Rudy’s case, it’s a resounding NO. I would not even want him living in my neighborhood or anywhere near my dog.
nk (9ce1c0) — 1/23/2008 @ 4:14 pm“It took Bill Clinton, a Democrat, to get control of the federal deficit. (Sorry, conservatives, but it’s true.) And it might take Rudy Giuliani to appoint solid Supreme Court Justices.”
Actually, it took Newt Gingrich.
Kevin (4890ef) — 1/23/2008 @ 4:19 pmnk,
You are way over the top and are seeing things solely thru your preconceptions. Giuliani has positions with which I would agree and some with which I would not, but there’s no doubt you are indeed demonizing him unfairly with the examples that you cite and the biased way they are phrased. And I say this as someone who doesn’t think he’d make good judicial selections either.
Have a beer, enjoy your family, get your perspective back.
ras (fc54bb) — 1/23/2008 @ 4:41 pmnk wrote: But that’s not the basic reason I would never vote for him for President. My threshold question is: “If I were to die, would I trust this person to raise my daughter?” In Rudy’s case, it’s a resounding NO. I would not even want him living in my neighborhood or anywhere near my dog.
::::Sigh::::
1. I don’t know too many politicians I would trust to raise my daughter (if I was a father, which I am not).
2. I don’t know what being a good foster father has to do with being a effective President.
3. If you are the type of person that assails Rudy because of his actions infringing on “personal freedoms” like jaywalking, you certainly would agree that if Rudy wanted to move into your neighborhood, that would be your problem, not his.
4. You’re off your rocker if you think Rudy is a threat to your dog. I wouldn’t even say that of Bill Clinton. Larry Craig, on the other hand…
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 1/23/2008 @ 4:42 pm“As a U.S. attorney in the 1980s, Giuliani conducted what University of Chicago Law Prof. Daniel Fischel called a “reign of terror” against Wall Street. He pioneered the use of the midday, televised “perp walk” for white-collar defendants who posed no threat to the community – precisely the sort of power play for which conservatives reviled former state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.”
– quoted by nk
Sounds like Abe Weiss, the DA in Bonfire of the Vanities.
Leviticus (9f07da) — 1/23/2008 @ 4:49 pmI meant that
nk (9ce1c0) — 1/23/2008 @ 4:54 pma) He would kick my dog;
2) Call the dogcatcher;
3) Demand that my dog be put to death for annoying him; and
4) Prosecute me for animal abuse using every dirty trick just short of legally defined prosecutorial misconduct (he’s not a stupid psychopath) to deprive me of due process.
Abe Lincoln said, “most any man can handle adversity, but if you want to see his real character, give him power.”
I can guarantee them that my own daughter would offer them nothing they couldn’t handle!
ras (fc54bb) — 1/23/2008 @ 4:54 pm🙂 And I will back of on Rudy, if you will let me, to get back on topic, for this reason. With all the goodwill in the world, a president does not know what his Supreme Court appointees will do. Eisenhower, a President no one could object to, said of his appointment of Earl Warren: “Biggest damn fool thing I ever did.”
nk (9ce1c0) — 1/23/2008 @ 5:00 pmras wrote: I can guarantee them that my own daughter would offer them nothing they couldn’t handle!
I’m sure you didn’t mean that the way it came out.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 1/23/2008 @ 5:04 pmThis idea of people going from one state to another to procure abortions has a small problem: when the religious conservatives pass a federal law making it illegal to cross state lines for that purpose.
We can safely assume that the idea will occur to them.
At this point, the question of why Rudy 9iu11ani will appoint SCOTUS justices who will strike down laws he says he supports is a largely theoretical question. He’s running behind Ron Paul, isn’t he?
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 1/23/2008 @ 5:30 pmhere have fun
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22giuliani.html?_r=2&ei=5088&en=63f997ac48aa19a1&ex=1358744400&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
I haven’t even read the whole thing. Somebody tell me if it mentions his friend the pedophile priest.
Rudy is toast. Burnt to a crisp.
blah (191069) — 1/23/2008 @ 5:40 pmAndrew J. It’s not about abortion it’s about sex.
blah (191069) — 1/23/2008 @ 6:02 pmMissouri 2006:
AJL #59…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/23/2008 @ 6:04 pmDoesn’t that run up against the Commerce Clause?
I agree Guiliani is the best candidate left in the race, at least for now. I think Romney would be a close second, and frankly, I don’t even think McCain would be all that bad when it comes to which judges to pick. His role in the Gang of 14 was a huge misstep, but there’s no evidence he did it because he wanted to keep good judicial conservatives off the bench. To suggest that McCain is against good judges because he pursued a bad strategy is a bit like saying Fred? isn’t a real conservative because he likes McCain.
Xrlq (b65a72) — 1/23/2008 @ 6:07 pmI used to ask my friends who voted for Bill Clinton, “If the guy cheats on his own wife, what makes you think he won’t cheat on the people who voted for him?” I still think it’s a fair question. Guilliani is a worse scumbag than Bill Clinton ever was, and the “character counts” Republicans are actually thinking about voting for him. Frankly, I’m appalled, not only at the hypocrisy, but also at the naiveness.
Sure, Guilliani has some good qualities for leadership but basically he is a bad person. Too many of you think that the system of government in the US will control bad people so that only their good qualities can be exercised in the presidency, but that is naive. Bill Clinton had good qualities too, but that didn’t stop him from selling missile technology to the Chinese for illegal campaign contributions. What will Guilliani do in pursuit of his egomania? Start an unnecessary war? Use the IRS to punish his enemies? Appoint liberal personal friends to the Supreme Court? We don’t know. But we do know that you can’t trust a douche except for one thing: you can trust him to be a douche.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 1/23/2008 @ 6:19 pmL.N. Smithee,
I’m sure you didn’t mean that the way it came out.
In the context of Lincoln’s quote, it means she would offer them only adversity (my daughter is a teenager). She certainly doesn’t take orders from anyone.
But um, if it came out wrong … um again … oops.
ras (fc54bb) — 1/23/2008 @ 6:20 pmi think the Court kinda stumbled into the abortion mess and has been stuck ever since. rudy is my guy but i fear his wait till florida primary strategy was a big mistake.time will tell naturally but at this point i’d say mc cain is the front runner and the only guy who has a shot at stopping him is romney.so, i guess i’ll slink on over to the romney camp.
james conrad (7cd809) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:23 pm45
“The ease of crossing a state line obviates your argument, tho, does it not? What matter if your state bans it altogether if one can hop a bus for a coupla hours to where the law is different?”
This didn’t seem to bother anyone very much before Roe vrs. Wade. Such laws would reduce the number of abortions. Remember the average woman getting an abortion is poor and stupid and traveling for an abortion might not be so simple for her.
James B. Shearer (de70a3) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:31 pmThe next time blah makes an astute, or accurate political observation will be the first.
JD (fc7319) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:40 pmOr, to cite a less far-fetched example, it’s like saying Duncan Hunter isn’t a real conservative because he just endorsed … spit … Huckabee.
Xrlq (b65a72) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:41 pmExcept for that part about invading New Jersey, murdering upstate New Yorkers by the millions, or doing just about anything remotely analogous to anything else Josef Stalin did. Other than that, he and Stalin were indistinguishable.
Xrlq (b65a72) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:57 pmYou’re right. But you forgot that he was also much taller, did not have a moustache and nowhere near as good hair. 😉
But won’t you please also see my comment #50?
nk (9ce1c0) — 1/23/2008 @ 8:40 pmComment #50 is exactly what Stalin wouldda wrote!
ras (fc54bb) — 1/23/2008 @ 8:47 pmblah #60,
You look at my comment #50, too. The part in italics is something I took from someone else. But I made it my words here, standing by them myself, and not passing on the responsibility to anyone else through attribution or claim of authority. That’s honest and responsible conversation.
Unlike you, with your drive-by linking of things you admit you have not even read.
nk (9ce1c0) — 1/23/2008 @ 8:52 pmNo, it’s the commerce clause that allows Congress to prohibit interstate travel for what it deems to be improper purposes. IANAL, but I think Hoke v United States (constitutionality of the Mann Act) would be on point.
Andrew J. Lazarus (a6b037) — 1/23/2008 @ 9:07 pmThe president must also prep the country for a post-Roe world. A pro-choice prez, even if he’s sincere in his promise to appoint anti-Roe justices, cannot credibly use his position to sway opinions and social structures in a pro-life direction.
Kevin Jones (02d2ad) — 1/23/2008 @ 9:15 pmPatterico, seems your edict failed, but then you knew it would and stated such as well. Sorry.
“But 1 in 5 kids are aborted. We can at least make abortion rare and publically condemned, it somewhat available.”
Where are the official stats on such a claim, whoever wrote it?
Or
Might this be another number pulled from a dark place that probably has an offensive odor as well?
Many states already do tightly regulate any abortion with required education and other such measures in order to reduce such.
Think of this, Many politicos desire abortion to not exist as they ultimately profit from too many people. People pay taxes, the more the merrier!
Though sad, for many it is indeed a valid ticket to a better life for now, and when personal circumstances exist, bring more into this phuked up world!
Barbra Bush said it best a very long time ago. The govt has no business in my womb. Or something to the same effect. This is a decision best left to those that feel the need to go there. NOBODY else!
************
But I still desire to see those any of these candidates would be considering for cabinet level positions.
That is by far more telling!
TC (1cf350) — 1/24/2008 @ 3:11 amNever fear folks abortion is here to stay. Republicans account for aprox. 43% of all abortions, and thank God for that. If only Big Bush had joined those 43% with the liitle Bush. JM
Manson48 (f19dd6) — 2/24/2008 @ 8:26 pm