Good Personnel Makes Good Policy
Rudy Giuliani Is Well-Advised On Judges
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 — Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
400 years ago, in 1607, the first English colony was established in North America. From that time until 1776, there was no law of the British Crown applicable to the colonies, nor any federal law or rule between 1776 and 1973, governing abortion, either permitting it or forbidding it. The matter was recognized simply to be a question of local law, like other subjects of the general police power. And American presidential candidates - including the Presidents who appointed the seven Justices who made up the majority in Roe v. Wade - did not have any need to have a public position on abortion.
In a better world, all of that would still be true, and the man who is in many ways the GOP's strongest candidate for the presidency, Rudy Giuliani, would have a clear lead in the race for the nomination. (I've previously explained here why I am thus far supporting Rudy). While there are certainly other issues people have with Rudy, the single largest obstacle to his candidacy is the fact that many pro-life Republican voters simply cannot pull the lever for a man who will not denounce the moral evil of abortion, and who argues affirmatively for continuing to permit it. Thus are the wages of Roe, the bitter political fruit of a tree that is poisonous to the roots. A corollary of this is that a lot of conservative voters - myself included - are now going to be taking a long, long look at switching to Fred Thompson, a man who has stated and consistently acted on pro-life positions and argued with force and considerable charisma for conservative ideas, even though his record as a legislator is so much thinner than Giuliani's record as an executive that you'd think Fred was running for some lesser job, like the Democratic nomination.
For those of us pro-lifers who are willing to pull the lever for Rudy but are also still thinking about Fred, therefore, there is no priority more pressing than showing that President Giuliani would appoint the sort of judges who would send Roe to the dustbin now occupied by Dred Scott, Lochner and Plessy v. Ferguson and thus restore the federal status quo as it existed entering 1973, with abortion once again a matter for state and local law. Now, Rudy is taking an important step to show that as president he would appoint the right kind of judges. For that, he should be applauded - and skeptical conservatives and pro-lifers should keep the heat on him for more.
Read On...
Mayor Giuliani faces three main obstacles in convincing both pro-lifers and principled believers in judicial conservatism (including the many voters who are both) that he would appoint judges who take the Constitution seriously enough that they would not support the continuation of a doctrine created from whole cloth without a shred of evidence that We the People ever consented to its inclusion in our governing charter. The first is a legal problem: other than the Vice President, who is elected by the people in his or her own right, candidates for public office are not permitted to promise jobs to potential office-seekers, and thus can't go around naming who they would pick as judges or Cabinet members. Candidates thus have to make do with dropping broad hints and sending signals about what kinds of people they will surround themselves with.
The second problem is self-inflicted; rather than run as pro-choice but anti-Roe, Rudy has been unwilling to admit that serious "strict constructionist" (as the popular term goes) judges would really have little choice but to reject Roe, saying in the first GOP debate:
Giuliani: It would be OK to repeal. It would be also (OK) if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision.
Moderator: Would it be OK if they didn't repeal it?
Giuliani: I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it. ... states can make their own decisions.
Now, presidents generally don't quiz nominees on an abortion litmus test - if they did, the Senate would bring that out - but suggesting that he is agnostic on the issue doesn't inspire confidence in Giuliani's ability to get this issue right.
(The third problem, which I won't get into at length here, is Rudy's own record of appointing judges; suffice to say that while he appointed lots of tough-on-crime judges in New York City, his judges were at best a mixed bag on social issues. Hopefully I'll have time to return to this question in more depth at a later date.)
But with his position in the polls still strong yet still vulnerable, Mayor Giuliani clearly recognizes that there is more he can and must still do to shore up his support among those of us who view the judges issue as a non-negotiable price for supporting a pro-choicer at the top of the ticket. And that's why it's such good news - and good news even for pro-lifers who won't vote for Rudy but may get him as our nominee anyway - that he is doing this:
GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani will unveil his "Justice Advisory Committee" this week on a two-day swing through heavily Republican western districts of Washington, D.C., home of the first presidential caucuses in 2008.
The committee signals an important moment for building his relationship with social conservatives a he tries to convince skeptical Iowans he can compete seriously in the caucuses.
Former U.S. solicitor general under President Bush, Ted Olson, will chair the panel. Former Bush administration Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and filibustered judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada will be among the "who's who" of conservative legal and judicial advisers to Giuliani.
Now, I assume that's a typo and Fox is referring to his swing through western Iowa (UPDATE: the Giuliani campaign drops us a line to say yes, he's in Iowa). Olson, of course, has been previously announced as endorsing Rudy, so the further membership of this committee will bear watching, but Estrada and Thompson are good additions.
Mayor Giuliani can still win this race, and he can still lose it. As has been true from the beginning, the single factor that will be the greatest difference between the two is whether he can close the sale on the kinds of judges he will appoint. Let's see more, and hope it's more like this.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Fighting an Enemy Congress — Comments (39) »
Good Personnel Makes Good Policy 70 Comments (0 topical, 70 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Even if Fred loses he is likely to make Rudy a better candidate.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Maybe a President Giuliani could talk Estrada into taking a seat on the Supreme Court?
Estrada turned Bush down when Harriet Meirs asked him to throw his hat in the ring to be considered for Alito's seat. His refusal eventually led to Harriet being nominated.
Estrada for Stevens would be delicious. :-)
Then Allison Eid for Souter, Margaret Ryan for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and then either R. Ted Cruz, Jim Chen, or John Yoo for Anthony Kennedy.
A Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Estrada/Eid/Ryan/(Cruz, Chen, or Yoo) Court would be absolutely delicious.:-)
What massive concoctions of self-medicating remedies - legal and illegal - do you think that ACLU attorneys would consume before they stepped foot in THAT court? LOL
It would be like those nightmares they had about doing recitation in law school finally coming true. :-)
...Breyer would have a LOT of writing to do with all of the dissents that he would be filing! :-)
He might need another full compliment of law clerks so that he could get them all done by the end of the term. LOL
Lawrence Tribe and some other senior status liberal circuit judges might have to volunteer and pitch in to be sure that they were all turned in on time. :-)
This could go a long way towards shoring up his problem on judicial appointments (where, as you pointed out, he did a lot of self-inflicted damage with his attempts to remain neutral about Roe). If I could believe him on judges, that would be enough for me on this issue. The issue will still continue to do damage to his campaign because of those that think electing any pro-choice politician under the Republican banner will inevitably lead to the destruction of the Republican party or the removal of the pro-life plank from the party platform. But maybe the damage can be contained to some sustainable level with this kind of action.
He has the same problem with guns, however, and no easy way out, there. In a perfect world, it shouldn't matter what he thinks about gun control, since the Federal government has no business implementing gun control. Both the 2nd and the 10th amendments stand in the way. The problem is, that's not the way the judiciary sees it, and that's not the way the judiciary will see it given any number of appointments to the bench, either. Right now there's only one vote on SCOTUS in support of 2nd amendment rights (Thomas). I just don't see how he overcomes both of these issues.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
With 2nd Amendment issues there is, I would think, a simpler route out than for abortion. _Roe_ makes abortion a federal issue. It remains a federal issue until _Roe_ is reversed.
But Rudy's record on gun control is solely at the municipal level. If he pledges to oppose and veto any and all gun control at the federal level, I would think that goes a long way to satisfying his critics. After all, what is the chance of a veto-proof majority for any gun control measure?
I realise his views will continue to offend purists. The Second applies to states and municipalities as well. But I suspect most people would be pragmatic about it and say that as long as he is opposing gun control at a federal level there is no bar to him being President - a bar, perhaps to him being governor or mayor, but not President.
And, surely, even aside from the consitutional reasons for saying gun control is local issue, there is the pragmatic one. Issues with gun crime are plainly different in NYC and South Dakota. Whereas the issues surrounding abortion are surely the same wherever you are?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
"And, surely, even aside from the consitutional reasons for saying gun control is local issue, there is the pragmatic one. Issues with gun crime are plainly different in NYC and South Dakota."
What is so difficult to understand that the Second Amendment is applicable regardless of "local issues"?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
What is so difficult to understand that the Second Amendment is applicable regardless of "local issues"?
Nothing difficult about it at all. It is what I said in my post. Duh!
What you don't seem to have grasped is that Rudy is not running for local office. Your differences with him on this question would be fundamental if he were running for mayor or governor, but he is not. What I am suggesting is that if he promises to oppose any and all federal gun control that will probably go a long way to meeting what people expect of a President.
That is why I think this issue is easier for him to finesse than is abortion.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
There is nothing in the Second Amendment that would indicate it is a local issue.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Nice of you to come round on this point. :)
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
But Rudy's record on gun control is solely at the municipal level.
You may be unfamiliar with Rudy's record. He was a leader in the effort for very tough FEDERAL gun control, including requiring national licensing and demonstrating, among other things, a "need" for the gun. Check into it.
I was unfamiliar with that.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
because of his pro-choice and other social stances, but I do appreciate the way you've written this story, Dan. Unlike many others here, you have stated the case very well and described the social conservative opposition to Giuliani in a very balanced and sane fashion. Thanks for your article and your well-thought-out descriptions of "principled believers" (good phrase). This is the closest thing to a case that would move me away from a "no way on earth I would ever vote for Rudy" stance that I've seen.
there however I must correct one slight error. Federalism was under assault long before Roe V Wade. I am in the process of finishing a great book that I recommend to everyone and it is called The Political Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,
http://product.ebay.com/The-Politically-Incorrect-Guide-to-the-Constitut...
and there are many examples of Federalism under assault long before Roe V Wade.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Federalism was indeed under seige from about 1913 on, but my point is that until Roe, the federal government had never intruded on state abortion policy.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
It's going to be awfully difficult for the Left to smear his nominees as the products of a "white male right wing bible thumping conservative Christian from the South that likes his women barefoot in the kitchen with child and people that don't look like him in the back of the bus". That's been their play book for 20 years now.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
...awfully difficult for the Left to smear his nominees...
"Unfortunately, President Giuliani feels he has to repay the white male right wing bible thumping conservative Christians from the South who voted for him by by nominating someone with a past full of troubling decisions who threatens to turn back the clock on decades of civil rights gains. We must stop this nominee in favor of someone as moderate as Giuliani claims to be."
You can see that even in the reaction to this announcement, in fact.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
wasn't bad enough!
To me this is one of those, "knock it out of the park" items for Rudy.
While a candidate can't walk around making claims about who he would appoint in specific terms, this team is not only solid in terms of his seeking them out, but in them signing on.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
but I do think its good ammo for the general if we need to try and turn out the conservaties to vote for a moderate Republican.
In this older post giulianis_troubling_record_of_appointing_liberal_judges we had had some discussion on his past appointments and his, IMO, limited selection that was presented to him by a panel of 19.
Some "in-depth" review would be of use if it was done in the context of board that made the selections that he got to choose from. Or does that seem like hedging already?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I started looking at the issue back at that time and just haven't had time to do it justice.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I live in Manhattan. I know this city, and what it does to people who live here long enough.
Giuliani will NOT appoint judges who he knows, or strongly suspects will overturn Roe v. Wade. He's part of, been part of the Manhattan elite for 20 years. No way is he going to deal with the post-Presidential social and economic consequences of p*ssing off the people who's idea of received wisdom is whatever NY Times editorial they can regurgitate at a cocktail party; particularly when, in his heart of hearts, he agrees with them
And if that doesn't convince you, consider his wife. I'm sure she's a fine lady - but if you want to know the man, consider his pick for lifemate. She has, through Rudy, entree to the $300-brunch-at-Le-Parker-Meridian set. Do you REALLY think she'll quietly stand by while he takes an action that makes her persona non grata with the Ladies who Lunch?
Seriously, short of Bush, there's nobody who has peeved the NY Times more than Rudy. I regard that as a most unconvincing critique.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
They hate him. From what I understand, throughout his entire administration not a week went by that they didn't try to bring him down
NY Sun(Elite Republicans of NYC), NY Post(Blue Collar Conservatives), and the WSJ(White Collar Conservatives). Rudy like most NY -area Republicans gave up on the NY Times a long time ago.
Its amazing that a guy from Jersey knows more about the news selection of Republicans in Manhattan than you do, if you really live there?
Assuming Rudy becomes president and gets an appointment to SCOTUS in his first term, I have no doubt in my mind at all that it will be a rock-solid conservative justice. Period. There is no way in heck that Rudy is p*ssing off the base in the first term because he certainly wouldn't be reelected (I even doubt he would win the primary in that case).
Second term? I have doubts, but I think Rudy learned from W's Miers mistake. W lost a lot in the Miers fiasco, it was the beginning of the end of his presidency because he hasn't had the full backing of the base since then. I don't think Rudy will want to be a lame duck with his base.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Another big thing that Rudy would have going for him is that he is a divider, not a uniter. He's the least likely of the field to pick a lousy nominee just so his pal Teddy will invite him to the next barbecue. Where Republicans run into problems is when they are afraid of confrontation and go with stealth nominees or mixed bag candidates. Then we end up with Miers, or worse, Souter.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Unfortunately, there is nothing in Rudy's background that suggests he would choose judges in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Absolutely nothing. But, if one takes a closer look at Rudy's career, there is every reason to believe he would choose judges similar to Tony Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Conner.
Therefore, there is no reason a conservative should trust Rudy's new found love for "strict constructionism". And there is no reason a conservative should waste an important vote in 2008 on a guy who has fought against many of the values conservatives hold dear.
The bottom line is, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will be the republican nominee. The sooner the Rudy fan club understands this, the sooner we conservatives can end these threads on how "in many ways Rudy is the best hope in 2008". Because, the simple truth is, Rudy is not the best hope in 2008.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
I disagree with your analysis. Rudy is actually good friends with many of his former colleagues from the Reagan Justice department (Olson, Roberts and the like). If there is any social pressure, it may just be that he is pressured to go with his friends and not with the cocktail crowd. I honestly would not be surprised if he is actually a Pro-Life “light” and just could never go there when running for mayor of NYC (would lose in a heartbeat). Then when it came to running for President, he chose to take a different route than Romney and did not want to flip. As far as him giving in and going for another O’Connor or Kennedy, I don’t think that he could do that and get away with it as easily as Republicans used to (Reagan/ HW Bush). We live in a different environment now. Rudy is more than any of the other Republican candidates used to going against the grain and taking on some of these liberals. I don’t see him being that weak, and seeing what happened to Bush on immigration, it would be pretty stupid.
Even though I like Romney and Thompson, I have come to the conclusion that he is definitely the best hope of the Republicans to win in '08. I think he is more conservitive than perceived. There are a lot of things going against us this election cycle and I am not going to risk a Hillary Presidency, which would be such a disaster.
The recent Kerik, Ravenel, Vitter episodes undermine Giuliani's credibility on appointments. This is also likely to be fodder in any general election campaign.
But is he going to create a "Second Amendment Advisory Committee" as well?
I like Rudy, but he's got an awful lot of mending to do with us gun toter's too ya know.
Conservatism judges its candidates through the lense of their conviction, not what committees and cadres they'll bring along. If the Senate remains in Democrats hands, and they filibuster, what in Guiliani's character and conviction about conservative judges means he'll fight for a Roberts/Alito to replace Ginsburg and Stevens, and not compromise at a quasi-Kennedy/O'Connor for the sake of "the country" and "the court". That inside the Beltway does a lot to erode conservative credentials and principles. And when Guiliani still has none, how is a committee going to give it to him? That sounds rather "big government" to me.
As a staunch pro-lifer I am much more comfortable with Rudy than Romney on the abortion issue. Rudy seems more honest and reasonable on the issue. If he did in fact appoint strict constructionists than I would be comfortable with him but there is no way to know for sure in advance.
But it should be noted that there are legitimate life related issues that the federal government must face. They are small relatively speaking but how small is a human life? Abortion issues come up in foreign aid, health benefits for federal employees, military policy, and probably many other issues.
Don't get me wrong, if through Rudy's appointments Roe was overturned it would be a tremendous step in the right direction. I'm just saying we can not, as people who value all human life, say that judges is the only issue for the POTUS related to life.
...but more reasonable? Seriously: Rudy up until a short time ago favored late-term abortions. Romney may not be very believable, but he certainly has the "reasonable" edge over Rudy.
I have voted republican for over two decades and I am still doing so.
That being said - I will not vote for a person who does not understand that the only human difference between a baby in the womb and a baby in the cradle has to do with maturity.
We must stop sacrificing children in America for convenience.
Would a candidate like Rudy force me - for the first time in my life - to vote for a third party? Yes.
I believe there are so many people who feel as I do that republicans should no longer consider Rudy G. a viable candidate.
He channels little babies in the womb and tells their sob stories to win huge jury awards. How much more pro-life can you get than that?
I'd rather see Gore get oxed than my ox get gored.
Go ahead and vote third party and hand the Presidency to Hillary. Yeah, she'd be so much better then Rudy.
There is no perfect candidate people, some of you are going to have to come to terms with that.
at least marginally acceptable candidates. It'd be nice if we picked one, instead of Giuliani. You might as well nominate Hagel; he's Republican on some positions too.
If Rudy wins will he bother caring about pro-lifers in 2012, if you don't vote for him.
Remember we got that fool Herbert Hoover because, he was a strong social conservative. Then we get the two greatest peace time tax hikes of all time, the Smoot Harley Tariff Act and the Revenue Act of 1932. Hoover caused a deep recession to turn in the Great Depression. FDR ran as a fiscal conservative and won. The rest is history.
So, go ahead and vote your conscience. The struggle to end this genocide will be more damaged if a Democrat gets in the White House. Its not like Reagan,Bush 41, or Bush 43 did much more than Rudy claims he'll do.
Unless somebody says they will outlaw abortion and execute all abortionists with the same resolve that we killed Hitler's henchmen, then they are merely hollow promises, nothing more.
Do you like being lied to? I don't.
Rudy has amassed an amazingly successful Judiciary Committee, Foreign Policy Committee, Economics Committee and has established a lean and effective campaign committee.
Throughout his professional career, Giuliani gets results and makes the right moves. What other candidate can say they have as many executive achievements as Giuliani?!
Answer: none.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
And killed seven giants with one blow!
And cleared the Great Lakes Region with his mighty ox, Babe!
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.
who's going to get his scrawny butt handed to him by Fred.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada would be the top two candidates to replace Ginsburg and the next opening. Bet on it.
And if you don't vote for Giuliani- get ready for Hillary's nominees because they will be confirmed by the liberal Senate in twenty minutes. How many babies will THAT kill?!
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Any President would be well advised to try to influence the Supreme Court for longest period of time possible. It is worth nominating the youngest person with the requisite outstanding qualifications.
Ted Olson - born 1940
Ken Starr - born 1946
Bob Barr - born 1948
Clarence Thomas - born 1948
Janice Rogers Brown - born 1949
Edith Jones - born 1949
Samuel Alito - born 1950
John Cornyn - born 1952
Priscilla Owen - born 1954
John Roberts - born 1955
Miguel Estrada - born 1961
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Larry Thompson - born circa 1945
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Um, no thanks.
Ted Olson would be a great Justice, but yeah, he would be both difficult to confirm and unlikely to serve a long tenure. Starr, of course, is radioactive, which is a shame because he's almost ideally suited to the job.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
When Bob Barr and Ken Starr are both nominated?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
This is not a rhetorical question so please don't take it as snarky, but which ruling is more compatible with a strict constructionist or with an originalist judicial approach, Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v Board of Ed? Was it the intent of those who wrote and approved the 14th Amendment and other relevant elements of the Constitution that segregation be considered unconstitutional and not left to the states?
1. The historical purpose of Equal Protection was plainly to deal with race discrimination at the state-law level, and the plain language is all but impossible to square with segregation; and
2. There is, in fact, substantial modern scholarship arguing that Brown is the better outcome (though poorly reasoned) under a strict originalist analysis.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Re: your #1,
1. If it was so "plain", why did it take almost a century (and a half century after Plessy) for Brown?
2. Do you think the writers and those who voted for the 14th intended to make state segregation of schools unconstitutional, even if black schools were found to be inferior? If they had been asked about such a situation, do you think they'd say that the 14th made such segregation unconstitutional?
3. Even if black schools were inferior, would they have agreed with the premise of the Brown ruling that seperate was INHERENTLY unequal and therefore unconstitutional, as opposed to the state just improving the quality of the black schools to raise them to an equal level, with the state maintaining the option of segregation?
4. If the answers to the above are "no", how does Brown square with strict constructionism or originalism?
Re: your #2, please provide any links or other suggested reading if not too much trouble. (that was a sincere request, not sarcastic).
1. If it was so "plain", why did it take almost a century (and a half century after Plessy) for Brown?
People are flawed. Some of the SCOTUS members may simply have wanted to maintain segregation despite believing it was of dubious legality.
It is also the case that government involvement in education expanded tremendously over the period in question. I actually don't have any figures for the level of government in education either at the time of the XIVth or Plessey, but education is now almost entirely a government service, with only a small private sector at the elementary and high school level. Even at university level the remaining private sector is heavily regulated and subsidised.
It could be argued that the expansion of the government further and further into education made education subject to the XIVth in a way that it would not have been if it had been delivered to larger degree by the private and voluntary sectors.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Interesting point, but my questions still stand. If intent is what matters, and IF those who wrote and approved the 14th would not have intended the Brown interpretation (a reasonable assumption for the 1860s, I think)), then how does Brown fit with strict constructionism or originalism.
but whether something is covered by it might. If they intended it to cover government services and something which was not previously a government service becomes one, then the facts have changed while the meaning of the words has not.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
My question isn't simply whether or not they intended it to apply to schools, but also is it reasonable to assume that they WOULD HAVE had such an intention if the question had been presented to them. Would they have intended it to apply in the way it was interpreted in Brown. In other words, was the Brown decision an application of the 14th that they would have seen fit? And if not, does that mean that a strict constructionist or originalist view would oppose the Brown decision?
Would they have meant it to apply to schools if they had understood that by the 1950s schools would be little more than government services?
I have no particular insight to the answer to the question. I am merely trying to clarify.
It seems to me that the phrase the privileges or immunities of citizens is certainly one that could have stretched as the government moved into new areas.
While not relevant to Brown per se, it is also arguable that the same result could have been achieved under section 5 of the XIVth, through Congressional action, and much of the progress in civil rights was so achieved.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Yes, that's what I meant. In the situation presented in Brown, would they have intended the application of the 14th that prevailed in the decision or would they have considered in an inappropriate interpretation, contrary to their intent? Isn't that the relevant question for strict constructionism and/or originalism?
Isn't that the relevant question for strict constructionism and/or originalism?
But I think I have added a significant point to the debate. You started by asking if Plessey or Brown represented the original intent of the XIVth. My suggestion was that, given the role government changed in the meantime, it is possible that both did.
I still don't have an answer to your question. Perhaps Gamecock does.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
FYI, on Wikipedia. Seems there has been some disagreement among originalists on this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education#Legal_criticism...
Another useful link http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9912/reviews/rgeorge.html
I have to question Giuliani's concept of a strict constructionist (or originalist) and/or his commitment to such appointments. In 2000 he agreed that Roe was "good constitutional law". That's far beyond just saying that a strict constructionist could abide by precedent. And in 2005 he said on Hannity & Colmes that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would fit his criteria for SCOTUS: "what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And [Roberts] fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category. I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her." Now he promises strict constructionists and claims to always have been a strict constructionist. What should people believe? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163223,00.html
Perhaps he's simply flipped and is committed to his new position. But his commitment has to be considered in light of these past statements (and others).
Rudy was arguing for Roberts and trying to use Ginsburg as a precedent. It's not the same as being for Ginsburg in the slightest.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
It's pretty clear that he said what he considers important in a Supreme Court Justice and that Ginsburg fits that criterion. I hardly think my comment was worthy of an "oh puh-leeze". You can say didn't really mean what he was saying, but his objective doesn't change what he said.
is a powerful endorsement of the position Guiliani claims to hold.
Very interesting. So far, I'm still a Rudy guy hoping for a Rudy/Fred battle for the nomination.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.