So much for the crap Julie’s been spouting about Giuliani appointing "strict constructionalists" like Scalia and Thomas (which they aren’t). If Giuliani thinks Roe is good law, then he certainly can’t be trusted to make any sensible judicial appointments. It won’t be long until this race starts to swing back to McCain...as I’ve been saying.

Your link is not working, it looks like it has an extra " at the end. I’ll post it again here.

Rudy Utube clip

Another quote.

Cokie Roberts: "Would you vote in the Senate for McCain-Feingold?"

Rudy: "Yes. I’m a big supporter of McCain-Feingold."

The good news is that we’re not left guessing: Guiliani told us what he thinks about Roe. He’s a smart man. He knew what was at stake when the question was asked. And he answered honestly. We could use more of that in political races. But, as Peter said, his answer "is a real problem for his candidacy."

Here’s a link via Michael Barone giving Giuliani a pretty clear run at Hillary (again, he keeps all the states Bush won in 2004, gets back the few he had in 2000, and puts practically the whole eastern seaboard into play). Although I have to admit I haven’t had time to read the article Clint linked to which claims the contrary.

Anyway, I’ll say again: Giuliani is admittedly not a social conservative, but take a look at this article claiming he’d be more than willing to fight for Janice Rogers Brown (and presumably others of her ilk). Although, it is an aid making the statement, not Giuliani himself.

The link is mended. Sorry (again). I’m always doing this stuff in a rush.

The Court itself admitted that Roe was bad law in Casey but no matter how bad, the Court claimed it never reversed itself due to stare decisis.

Giuliani is less bad and more electable than McCain, and probably more electable than Romney.

Hillary and Obama are electable. If one of them offers to run as a Republican, should we accept? For a great many people in the GOP it seems the answer is "Yes".

If you’re too ignorant to know that there are large differences between Rudy and Oprahbama, or Rudy and Shrillery, why don’t you leave us grownups and go back to the children’s table? We don’t have to answer your lame-brained hypotheticals.

Also, adults often use ridiculous nicknames to bash people they disagree with.

I suspect that you see yourself as a grownup, David. If so, no doubt you will be able to explain all the differences between Giuliani and HRC.

You can help yourself out if you watch the video clip first, where Rudy accepts the proposition that he is much like the Clintons. But I suppose watching a video of Giuliani speaking his mind is just too childish for you.

Clint, in my defense . . . I did not say that I knew (or even thought) that Giuliani would appoint strict constructionalists like Thomas and Scalia--just that he said he would. I thought it was significant that he felt compelled to say that--particularly to add Thomas and Scalia instead of just saying Roberts and Alito has he had been doing. I thought, and still rather think, that he knows he’s vulnerable here and that he’s got to do something or give something to shore up his chances. I am troubled by what he said in that interview--less because I don’t like what it suggests with regard to policy outcomes or judicial appointments than because it suggests he doesn’t really understand the constitution. And I’ve got to say that I’m actually more troubled by his support of McCain-Feingold. That’s even more obviously unconstitutional than the bad con-law in Roe.

But I will also say that in the same interview where G. noted that he would seek appointments like Thomas and Scalia, he also commented that one could never really tell what a judge would do once appointed. You might try for a Thomas or a Scalia and still get a Souter, he noted. I thought, at the time, that he was alluding to the bad way some of his appointments in New York turned out and trying to make an (albeit, self-serving) apology. But now I’m wondering if he wasn’t just leaving himself an out. I don’t like it. Of course you can tell if you’re getting a Souter if you really know what you’re looking for.

As for your aside about Thomas and Scalia not being strict constructionalists, not going there . . . sorry! But geeesh . . . would that these were our problems.

Ok, fair enough, but it seemed like you (Julie) were awful close to jumping on the Rudy bandwagon a few weeks ago. I’d be glad to argue too that McCain-Feingold is far safer to the Constitution and the nation than Roe. After all the penumbras and emanations that it took to coax a right to privacy that allows murder seems a little more extreme to me than a "reasonable" restriction on "free speech" (not saying that I agree w/finance reform either).

This may just be an aside for my own infatuation, but Rudy (and Bush’s) talk about "strict constructionalists" rings empty. Constitutionally, the last strict construtionalist was probably Justice Black. No current Supreme Court Judge would define themselves as such. Thomas leans mostly toward natural law, while Scalia is mostly a historical originalist. "Scalia and Thomas" is really not the case, for they are quite different. Scalia was closer I think to Rhenquist (my past favorite) than to Thomas. So the point is that appointing "strict conststuctionalists" like Scalia and Thomas just further shows Rudy’s lack of constitutional muster. Didn’t he use to be a U.S. Attorney, even less of an excuse. But alas almost all these candidates are intellectually weak, so I’m looking for those with the most character--say what you mean and do it kind of guys. So far that means McCain from the frontrunners and Huckabee from the dark horses.