November 16, 2007

It's All in the "But"

Justin Katz

This is for those who think that Rudy Giuliani's philosophy on the judiciary will compensate for his personal view on abortion:

"But with Roe—a strict constructionist judge could come to either conclusion about Roe v. Wade. He could come to the conclusion that it was incorrectly decided, overturn it, or he could decide well, it's been precedent for so long now, it would be too disruptive to overturn it, so we leave it alone. I would leave that up to a judge."

Do pro-lifers really want to flip that coin?

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

As I have stated previously, I will vote for Rudy only if he releases a list of specific, named judges he would appoint to the SC.

Posted by: Mike at November 17, 2007 7:41 AM

If abortion is one of the greatest moral issues of our day -- and I believe that it is -- and if we are truly only one Supreme Court Justice away from consigning Roe the dustbin of history -- and I believe that we are -- I cannot risk my vote on anyone who is not committed to appointing a Justice who will correct this monstrosity.

It's that important.

If Rudy followed Mike's suggestion, it might make me give Rudy a second look . . .

Posted by: brassband at November 17, 2007 2:19 PM

I’ll give Giuliani this, he’s managed to promote a “conventional wisdom” that he’s the "only 'Republican'” that can beat Hillary, when in fact he’s the “Republican” LEAST LIKELY to beat Hillary.

The mainstream media is playing along, essentially anointing him as the presumptive (and inevitable) Republican nominee. This is because they’ve decided that they can live with him because he agrees with them on most issues – he’s pro-abortion; pro-amnesty; pro-gun control and pro-gay marriage.

As for his "law and order" / "national security" shtick, the NYC based media likely likes him because he cleaned up NY – indeed many likely prefer him to Hillary (though they’d never admit it publicly) for he's a liberal that keeps the streets safe.

BUT A LAW AND ORDER LIBERAL IS STILL A LIBERAL, and so Giuliani makes a great fallback position for liberals / the MSM if they conclude we “must resign ourselves” to another Republican President.

This is why FOR NOW we’re not seeing the MSM inundating us with the DRAG QUEEN photos of Giuliani, or emphasizing his VERY LIBERAL political philosophy.

If Giuliani gets the nomination we’ll being seeing all of that AD NAUSEAM - both from the MSM and Democrat supporting 527’s - particularly targeting the “Bible Belt” states and values voters, all intending to AFTER THE NOMINATION to alert them to how liberal Giuliani really is (not particularly distinguishable from Hillary after all) and therefore to SUPPRESS the Republican vote.

Just imagine the TV ads running throughout the Sunbelt states with drag queen Giuliani and voiceovers talking about his support for gay marriage, abortion, etc. Many will just decide to stay home on election day - which will suppress the Republican vote up and down the ticket.

It’ll probably work – and this is why Giuliani is the candidate LEAST LIKELY to be able to beat Hillary (or any liberal Democrat).

Posted by: Tom W at November 17, 2007 2:35 PM

Tom, your rant almost makes me want to support Guiliani. Too bad Rudy struts around with the belief that 3,000 people willingly gave their lives that day so he could be emperor of the world and profit - that's the reason he'll never get my vote.
Contempt for Guiliani comes from different legitimate sources, both conservative and liberal.

Posted by: rhody at November 17, 2007 9:41 PM

"Too bad Rudy struts around with the belief that 3,000 people willingly gave their lives that day so he could be emperor of the world and profit"

What?! I have no horse in this race and have no idea at this point for whom I will be voting. But that is an outrageous statement, Rhody. You need to either withdraw it or substantively prove it.

Posted by: Monique at November 17, 2007 11:47 PM

Monique, it's fair comment about Guiliani's ego and the way he's profiteered from 9-11 through his consulting business.
I have no intention of withdrawing my statement.

Posted by: rhody at November 18, 2007 1:17 AM

Rhody, we have earthquake experts and hurricane experts who "profiteer" (though some might call it getting paid for a skill/expertise - but we can go with your word) from those dangers. Can you demonstrate that Giuliani's motives and attitude in "profiteering" are more vile than theirs?

Posted by: Monique at November 20, 2007 7:39 AM

Earthquake experts and hurricane experts generally don't pronounce themselves qualified for the most powerful office in the free world.

Posted by: rhody at November 20, 2007 11:25 AM


Rudy is given credit for providing leadership in a very difficult time. And yes, he has profited from the fact that he did that in the face of 9/11.

The argument that he profited from 9/11 is like saying a Police Commissioner profits from crime or ... successful military leaders profit from war or ... like Democratic politicians are profiting from what is happening in Iraq.

He is taking advantage of the positive opinion of his handling of the situation. Why wouldn't he? If the perception was that he did a poor job after 9/11, would you say that would be out-of-bounds in the campaign?

Or do you see those as completely different?

I don't agree with the specific fear of Rudy as it applies to the appointment of judges. I don't think any of the main top-tier GOP candidates is a guarantee for nominating a SJC who would overturn Roe v Wade. Only someone like an Alan Keyes or Rick Santorum where abortion is one of their major issues could be counted on for that. Look at the record of the SJC Reagan & Bush 41 nominated (Souter, O'Connor)

Posted by: msteven at November 20, 2007 4:54 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.