Redstate

Posted at 3:49am on Feb. 19, 2007 The Real Rudy on Abortion

By JPV

Let's set the record straight on one thing: Rudy Giuliani is not a social moderate, he is a social liberal. On abortion, gun control, gay rights, and a host of other issues, he did not just fail to advance the conservative line, he openly attacked it. Those of us who lived in NYC during his time in office know this well. Nonetheless, a lot of people (most who only know Rudy from 9/11) have willfully blinded themselves into believing that he was not really that bad and would nominate conservative justices to the Supreme Court. But, please read the following text from the NYC archives of a speech he gave at a NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) "Champions for Choice" fundraiser in NYC and ask yourself if this sounds like a man that would nominate the swing vote to overturn Roe? And, if you still have faith in Rudy on judges, ask yourself, does NARAL know something you don't? NARAL so loved Rudy, they actually gave him four times as much money as they gave to Hillary, when they went head-to-head in the Senate race. (Please note that this speech is just one of many that you could easily find where Rudy makes his liberal views on social issues explicit. Read the man's record for yourself.)

Comments (93) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:28am on Feb. 16, 2007 For the life of me, I just don't get the willful blindness over Rudy.

By JPV

I've gone over Rudy's Hannity & Comes comments (and his other recent comments) over and over again and I fail to see how any of it does anything to disprove the fact that Rudy is a straight-up social liberal who cannot be trusted with the future of the Supreme Court.

On abortion:

He said "I don't like it" and would personally "advise somebody against it." But he also said that it's a "personal matter" and "However, I believe in a woman's right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that, and I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and you have to respect the choice that somebody makes." How is this any differnt than Bill Clinton's position when he was in office? Just like Clinton, he hits all the buzz words (e.g., "choice") and raises the straw men (e.g., "putting women in jail") that any smart liberal would. Does this sound like a credible move to the center to anybody with functioning ears?

Comments (48) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:31am on Oct. 22, 2005 "Miers Backed Race, Sex Set-Asides" (WashPost 10/22)

By JPV

Saturday's Post reports that Miers established racial and gender quotas at the Texas Bar Association:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR200510210
2139.html

In fairness, there is a difference between a private entity voluntarily deciding to implement quotas and the government mandating them, but when you combine this with her "mistake" regarding "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" in her response to the Judiciary Committee, she will definitely have to do some explaining.

Once again, the White House seems to have been caught off guard.  You would have thought the White House would have gotten out in front of this with some preemptive action.  (Unless, of course, the rumors about her role in the Michigan case are true, and she really does support affirmative action.)

Please, Mr. President end this madness!

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:54am on Oct. 18, 2005 Miers endorses Griwold and "Right to Privacy"

By JPV

According to the Washington Post and others, Specter says that Miers told him that Griswold was correctly decided.  So much for being another Scalia or Thomas.  While some may argue that Roberts also acknowledged a "right to privacy", did he ever actually say that Griswold was correctly decided (as opposed to citing it as the current law of the land and entitled to stare decisis "respect")?

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:33am on Oct. 15, 2005 Question? Does picking a known All-Star demonstrate the ability to discern potential?

By JPV

Many defenders of the Miers nomination have said that we should trust the President because of the great judicial picks he made in the past/  But, I'm I missing something or does this fail the test of logic, since none of Bush's prior picks was a person with an unknown judicial philosopy?  THus, while his prior picks may prove that Bush WANTS conservative jurists on the bench, it says absolutely nothing about Bush's ability to JUDGE a person's judicial philosophy (or determine whether he or she has one in the first place) or discern whether that person would be effective in defending, explaining or promoting that philosophy.  Roberts and Bush's circuit court picks were well-known individuals who had already received the imprimatur of the conservative community.  So, the fact that Bush picked them hardly serves as a testament to his judgment.  

If I started a baseball team and immediately went out and selected eight members of this year's All Star teams, would that mean that I had great judgment regarding baseball talent?  And, if (after hiring an all-All Star outfield, infield and catcher) for my pitcher, I passed up all the available All-Stars (including the two current Cy Young winners) and, instead, selected an unknown 37 year-old who had never pitched in the majors (but, whom I had known for over ten years) would you have any reason to trust my judgment?

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »