Get busy, Mr. Mayor. Or Romney Here I Come.
By 99Jasper Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A commenter on this thought-provoking blog piece made the observation that presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani is "as likely to appoint conservative Justices as any other candidate."
Really, I thought. More so than Brownback? Newt? Hunter? Tancredo?
Anyway, this really is they key question for me concerning the Guiliani candidacy; I'll frankly admit that a pro-life Guiliani would be something of a perfect candidate for me, a somewhat more moderate GOPer than many of y'all. Maybe I just haven't followed his statements carefully enough, but I have no firm idea that he's a vociferous proponent of federalism, and I have no firm idea on how he views Roe. And I don't think that's by accident, because I get the impression that Rudy doesn't want us to know what he thinks of Roe. Maybe that's because he loathes the 1973 decision and doesn't want to offend moderates or liberals (so as to be competitive in a general election), but maybe it's because he has no intention of using the office of the presidency to protect the lives of the unborn because, he's, you know, "pro-choice".
If my state's primary were held tomorrow morning, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Rudy, either. Fortunately for the Guiliani campaign, he's still got lots of time to win over some of the pro-life voters he'll need to win. And make no mistake, any GOP hopeful who completely stiffs us and gets ZERO percent of our votes is done. Period.
Of course, it won't be credible for Rudy to "pull a Romney" and convert on the eve of the election. His best bet is to avoid the obvious, Romneysque pander session and, instead of attacking abortion head-on, attack the wrongess of Roe versus Wade.
Rudy should, in other words, make a speech containing language something to the effect of:
Although I was brought up to believe that human life is a supremely precious, sacred, gift from our Creator, it is true that as mayor of New York City -- the nation's largest and one of its most liberal communities -- my record of supporting the status quo with respect to abortion is well-known. I have nothing to hide in this regard. But even though many would use the label 'pro-choice' to describe my position, I have never favored the idea that courts ought to usurp the role of legislators, and I have always regarded abortion in particular as one of those contentious moral issues that would be best decided at the state level. Let the people's voice be heard, is my view. And yet the voices of the people -- whether they're liberal Californians or conservative Kansans or anything in between -- are effectively blocked from the political process by the 1973 decision -- a ruling that even many liberal jurists have admitted was poorly reasoned, and that has had highly damaging consequences. As your president, I'll use my power to shape the Supreme Court to ensure that the people do have a say in the great moral controversies of our day, because federalism has served our country well, and abandoning it has caused us great harm."
Otherwise, Romney here I come. And Rudy, one more thing: lots of time till Iowa doesn't mean infinite time.
Cross-posted at http://jasperblog.wordpress.com/
Off the top of my head, here's a quick list of current or recent federal judges who fit that criteria:
Luttig-4th Ct
Jones-5th Ct
Garza-5th Ct
Easterbrook-7th Ct
Silberman-DC Ct
Ginsburg-DC Ct
Randolph-DC Ct
Williams-DC Ct
Sentelle-DC Ct
Williams-4th Ct
Alito-3rd Ct
Roberts-DC Ct
Pryor-11th Ct
Winter-2nd Ct
among others
Not by coincidence, just about all of them are conservative in other areas as well(including Roe v Wade and similar cases)
and I think conservatives would be emminently comfortable with anyone from the above list.
If Mahoney would have dissented in ALL 4 of the above cases. Based on what I know of her, I doubt she would have upheld the death penalty in both the minor and the retarded cases, let alone the 2 terrorism cases. What evidence is there that she's tough on crime or terrorism?
In any event, given her lack of judicial experience and track record in any measurable fashion(she has 0 paper trail) as well the displeasure the base showed towards her last time out, I highly doubt she'd be considered by any future GOP President, Rudy or whoever it should be. So, she's really a non factor.
Don't forget, there's going to be tons of conservative interest groups advising whoever the next GOP President is and making their voices heard and after the Miers fiasco, I doubt Rudy or Romney or McCain or whoever is going to want to cross them.
Also, I didn't say that it's certain, but off the top of my head, and with a decent amount of research, among the judges who've been mentioned as being in the running, I haven't found one who meets the standard in all 4 cases and would be opposed by conservatives.
Keep in mind, we still don't know about Roberts and Alito. If they won't overturn Roe it doesn't really matter who Rudy would pick as it's not going anywhere if those two aren't on board.
There's probably some other cases you could add to the list as well to make it even more exclusive. Those 4 were the first 4 I thought of, since they were all within the last few years.
the days of the stealth candidate are over. any future nominee must have an Alito like track record. There won't be any more "trust me, he/she is one of us" type nominees like there was with Souter.
so, given her lack of judicial experience, writings, evidence of her views on just about any important constitutional question, Mahoney is a no go.
Only those with track records and paper trails will be considered.
Groups like the Federalist Society and the conservative DOJ/OLC networks would still be in place under any GOP administration and they'll still have considerable sway over SCOTUS picks.
Personally, I wouldn't be that worried when it came to SC Justices. The list is pretty much what it is regardless of the President. And given Rudy's DOJ/WH experience and USA experience, I'd actually trust him more than Romney and certainly more than McCain.
There's plenty of reasons to oppose Rudy(abortion, immigration, guns, stem cells, etc...), but Judges wouldn't be high on my list.
if you believe that conservative judges = pro life judges you may be right.
Giuliani has the most legal experience of any Presidential candidate in recent memory, he has loads more than McCain, Romney, Bush, Dole, Bush and Reagan combined.
Don't forget, the man clerked for a Federal Judge, worked in the DOJ of the Ford administration, worked in Reagan's DOJ as the #3 in charge of things like the US Marshals, the DEA, Immigration, and most Criminal issues overall, and was the top prosecutor in the #1 district in the entire country that took on the highest profile cases against the highest profile guys.
He led the investigation against Hinckley and carried out and ran Reagan's controversial stance on deporting Haitian illegals, among other things which are easily researchable.
As US Attorney for SDNY from 1983-1989, he was the #1 Prosecutor in the country. No one had a more high profile position and the SDNY is the top district in the Country.
No one has more experience in the practice of the law, particularly at the trial level, in dealing with mostly liberal appellate Judges from Carter who could overturn convictions on the Circuit Court level.(and thus would be intimately familiar with not wanting more of them on the bench)
He's been a colleague and worked in the same DOJ's as Scalia, Roberts and Alito. Being that Alito was the USA for NJ and Rudy was the USA for NY, I'm sure they had a good relationship.
I have no doubt whatsoever that he'd appoint the most pro law enforcement, pro national security judges out of any of the candidates, and if you look closely you'll find that Judges who fit that invariaby end up being against Roe as well.
Just look at Hamdan, Rasul, Roper and Atkins. Look at the Judges who dissented in all 4 of those cases. Those are the Judges Rudy would appoint. On the current court, that's Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito(not a coincidence). Kennedy by contrast was in the majority in all 4. A Kennedy type wouldn't even get an interview in a Rudy administration. If you were wondering about a certain federal judge, just ask yourself if they would have dissented in all 4 of the cases. If yes, they'd be ok. If you do, and you make a list of current federal judges who fit the criteria, I think you'd be quite pleased with them on the SC and if Bush himself would have nominated any of them, they'd have been strongly supported.