Redstate

He's not talking in code. If he was trying to trick you, he'd just flip-flop. He says he's pro-choice, but would appoint strict constructionists to the court. That isn't a dodge not to comment on Roe, it's merely speaking in reality, even in regards to strict constructionists.

Strict constructionists are more likely then not to overturn Roe, but not necessarily. There is a divide between strict constructionists who believe that bad precedent should be overturned no matter what, (the Thomas camp) and those that think in some situations, if precedent has stood for long enough, it should stand even if it was wrong (the Alito/Scalia camp). Even if they subscribe to the second camp, there is a division as to HOW long and HOW big the impact of overturning bad precedent must be before you decide to overturn it or not. So people in this camp are divided on Roe, but would still be considered strict constructionists.

And even if you were right, (and I think I explained why you aren't) here's the deal: He has no reason to want to screw over pro-lifers. If he does, he doesn't get re-elected. Period. And he's not so stupid as to not know that. Second, there is a 0% chance Hillary will appoint a good judge. At worst, there is a 50/50 chance that Rudy will. Finally, Rudy has been remarkably good at keeping promises. You might not agree with his promises, but he keeps them. He has no reason to screw you over and lose his credibility.

Bottom line is not voting in such a situation is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It might make you feel good, but it doesn't do America, or the pro-life cause any good.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

and what does a "strict constructionist" look like? Is it someone who will overturn Miranda? Sould one allow a precedent like that to stand or not?

This just in - Rudy doesn't have an abortion litmus test for judges, just like Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

First, you said:

Many abortion supporters have said that Roe was wrongly decided. Giuliani will not.

That's not entirely true. He just thinks that wrong decisions should be upheld or that it is reasonable to give them the weight of the Constituion or statute.

Rudy thought Roe should be overruled back before Casey. A lot more people did. Sandra Day O'Connor cooked up some of her own creative language though that makes it seem irreversible.

Second, no Presidential candidate can or should name people. I think that would compromise the system, especially if they were already serving as lower or state judges. It could impact their rulings or their actions, and it would give a lot more time for the opposition to grow and strengthen. It could impact the justices on the Supreme Court. I just don't think that sounds like a good idea.

Third, there are probably only three or four people on the lower courts (and about as many qualified outside the judicial system) who would ever consider overruling Casey on the Supreme Court. It has too much of a reputation of being a more drastic step than it really would be.

Finally, it likely won't matter which Republican is nominated since the Senate will not confirm anyone who does not promise to uphold Casey.

"Strict constructionist" is a pretty useless term now. As others have indicated, it means different things for different people. Personally, I think a strict constructionist would have to overrule Marbury v. Madison. Thus, in my mind, no such judge exists.

John McCain has already demonstrated that he will support people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, given that McCain voted for Ginsberg in 1993 after Clinton nominated her.

Of course, McCain didn't let the fact that Ruth Ginsberg had, as ACLU's General Council, Co-ed Prisons and lowering the age of sexual consent to the age of 12.

Nah.

But allowing conservative judicial nominee an up or down vote?

Nope. McCain was the first Republican US Senator to announce that he would vote with Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin and allow the, then, minority Democrats to have a veto power, via the judicial filibuster, over any nominations to the US Federal Courts.

Instead of McCain for President, how about McCain for retirement from politics?

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

The Republicans as a whole tried to play nice with the Dems in the '90s re: Supreme Court justices hoping they would stop the insanity re: nominations. Instead, the Dems got worse. Now, the hell with the "correct" way of doing things. Filibuster any Dem nominee that isn't acceptable (kept alive by McCain with the side benefit of Alito on the bench).

As I posted elsewhere, I think McCain played the situation perfectly and helped get conservatives on the bench.

The Democrats are always one step ahead.

If the Republicans were to filibuster a Leftish nominee to the US Supreme Court (which I doubt they would ever do because the Republican Senate caucus is infected with people like Linsday Graham, John McCain), the Democrats would just give us the Byrd Option - Part 5.

The Democrats have manipulated the Senate rules to their advantage many times. But Republicans like McCain won't do it even when the US Supreme Court is at stake.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

The nuclear option was called that because it would grind the Senate to a halt. A very small group (less than 40) can throw up enough procedural hurdles to stop everything (roll call vote on quorum calls on the start of business - going into committee, etc.) 3/4 of each day would be spent just starting business. If the Dems are dumb enough to pull the nuclear trigger (yeah - I know), I think the Reps will actually follow through re: judges. They know its a big issue among the base.

It didn't happen on the Byrd Option before (I think you're right on the number) because it wasn't a big issue - now it is.

anti Rudy? 5 times each? 10 times each? I think it will be at least 10 times each and an absurd amount of bandwidth. I get it, you are not a Republican, you will vote for Hillary over Rudy or you will stay home and eat a hot pocket. The reality is, many of us who do have real problems with Rudy's platform, are MORE likely to vote for Rudy after these " I am not a real Republican" diaries.

Rudy is the best campaigner (if there is a tie, it is with Huckabee). Rudy is by far the best fighter againt Hillary. Rudy is at least equal on the War on Terror. Rudy is the best of all of them at actually lowering taxes. Rudy says he is a Federalist and will not impose his personal social views, that will be left to the states. You guys can say he is "pro" gay, gun grabber, pro abortion, but his entire platform says otherwise. He says he is a federalist that will let states and localities decide their own social laws. He also said he would vote conservative judges, that is an exact quote, I heard him say it today.

You guys are the gang who could not shoot straight. You are not taking ANY votes from Rudy, you are only adding votes for Rudy. You say you want a Federalist, Rudy says he is one, but you still hate him. You guys can not take YES for an answer. But instead of stopping the Rudy campaign, you will just get run over by it.

The fact of the matter is Rudy is the most feared by the Democrats. They hate Rudy too, I guess you have some things in common with the hard left. If we abandon our best candidate, if we abandon the guy who wants to win in Iraq and in the Global War on Terror, so we can put up a milktoast guy who will be crushed by the Clinton Machine, AKA Romney, then fine, but those who hate Rudy are not our friends, they do not have the ability to judge fairly, and they would rather take down a Republican than a Democrat.

PS, I will vote for and support ANY Republican in the general election against the Dems. If that makes me a "party man", and you an "independent thinker" then, fine, go vote for you Green party, but stop boring us with the same dumb diaries every single night. For every " I will never vote for Rudy, even against Satan" diary, I will redouble my efforts to help Rudy win. And I am not even decided, that is how offended I am by this wasteful junk on our side.

Molon Labe!

I have called for us to build up our own candidates instead of trashing others. That hasn't stopped Dan from his 5 part hit piece of Romney. Goose/Gander