Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Giuliani Still Silent on ROE

I know this is getting boring. But Rudy managed to give another whole speech against judicial activism and such without criticizing ROE. So he’s far from clear on why he’d appoint judges like Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts.

Discussions - 10 Comments

His history in appointing judges offers little to support the belief that he'll be reliable on this issue.

Giuliani has been about as clear as either member of the Bush family.

It seems that we are holding Giuliani to a higher level of scrutiny than we held George Herbert Walker Bush and his son, George Walker Bush.

Giuliani has openly, publicly committed himself to nominating Originalists to the Courts. Now either we believe him, or we conclude that he's lying to us, and that he secretly intends on putting up there creatures like Souter, O'Connor and Warren.

So what is it? Is he telling us the truth, or is he lying to us.

I think he's telling us the truth, the fact that he hasn't pulled a Romney and invented some melodrama about his "conversion" on abortion tells me that he's refreshingly OPEN on the issue. He's told us what he thinks privately, he's also told us that he's not going to wage a jihad against that provision of the GOP Platform.

I believe him.

Giuliani has openly, publicly committed himself to nominating Originalists to the Courts.

No, he has said he will appoint "strict constructionists" to the court. And he does not seem to have the faintest idea what a "strict constructionist" is.

Bush did not have a track record of liberalism as Giuliani does. Nobody would have taken him seriously on judges if he had.

Why should we believe RG? Actions speak louder than words. I don't care what any of the candidates say!! I only care about their track records.

Don't you guys understand? This is about keeping a Republican in the White House. We need to win no matter what and Rudy is the best chance. Who cares if he is actually principled? When did principles win an election in this world? Besides, for those who claim they adhere to principle, we can just make up some principles and claim that Rudy represents them. Or even better we can explain that Rudy, even though he does not talk about or follow principle, is the best chance for leading us eventually to a principled end. All conservatives should be behind Rudy because he is the only way to keep the White House in GOP control. That is what we all want right?

Guiliani being vague on the specific of Roe is a smart political move. Why touch the third rail if one doesn't really need to?

It's sad that so many followers of this website see Roe in isolation. Roe is but a lesser included, the most prominent of which to be sure, but at the end of the day, ROE FOLLOWS a mindset, it follows an attitude, it follows an egomaniacal judiciary that deludes itself that it has the power, and the moral authority to stand in lieu of the legislature of the United States, and the legislatures of the several states.


Roe is symptomatic, it's not a catalyst for anything.

Giuliani understands that. Which is why he needn't mention Roe, he needn't mention abortion, he needn't mention that issue at all for him to make himself clear.

I'm stunned that Peter Lawler thinks that Giuliani must enunciate with the utmost and detailed precision on Blackmun's reasoning in Roe, and on the trimester construct.

Giuliani need do NOTHING of the sort.

All he needs to do is speak out clearly against judges assuming the power and the privileges of legislators. SO LONG AS HE DOES THAT, he IMPLICITLY, de facto, en passant, denounces Roe, for Roe stands for the proposition that judges must often decide "for the people, despite the people."

This doesn't necessarily mean that Giuliani needs to embrace ALL the views about abortion that most of us share. That's not necessary at all. ROE NATIONALIZED the issue. That's often forgotten. States were ALREADY beginning to address that issue on their own, without the federal judiciary stepping in and pre-empting the field. Which is the point that Scalia, with wit and skill, delineates in his dissent in Casey, {which is now controlling, Roe being dated and effectively overruled}.

We're looking at human experiments people, we're looking at cloning, not just of sheep, but of men, of the children of men. We're looking at the DNA of humans being commingled with that of "the beasts of the fields, the birds of the air." THAT'S "the brave new world" we're looking at.

So Giuliani doesn't need to specify Roe, which is a horror that's almost dated when compared to where we're going, what we'll soon be seeing, what is already being considered in the halls of as Churchill would aptly describe it, "PERVERTED SCIENCE."

So all of you with a big bug-a-boo about abortion, ....... newsflash .......... THERE'S a hell a lot more happening out there than Roe.

Giuliani's Constitutional approach would see Roe and Casey thrown back to the states, where it can be hammered out on a state by state basis.

This is something for Republicans to make hay on.

90% of the abortions happen in a handful of states, California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. It's largely an Eastern pathology. That's where the abortions are occurring. Most of those states have ALREADY made sure that whatever happens to Roe, abortion will be legal in their jurisdiction. Yet Liberals imply that abortion will be beyond the outstretched arms of needy women throughout the fruited plain. That's not the case.

Abortion isn't as much in need as it is in certain disordered Blue states.

And as for Bush, both of 'em had a track record of being a wet, a wimp. It wasn't a coincidence that the first Bush had to deal with "the wimp issue."

Bush was too much of a wimp to take a strong stand on abortion. It doesn't matter which Bush, both of 'em are the same. Both have wives that are pro-choice.

I don't want to go on about Bush, or the Bush family, lest I give myself a raging headache.

I hope "Politics of Power" is kidding. If this is what we are reduced to, just squabbling over getting the right letter (R, not D) in the White House, why bother?

Dan, besides making posts that are much to long, you assume that those of us who oppose RG are happy with Bush! Why do you think many conservatives are jumping ship on him? It isn't his foreign policy, its his liberal spending and his liberal policies on things like immigration and abortion. RG doesn't stand a chance. He is the best way to get Hillary in. Why? Because, like it or not, the Religious Right will start a third party if he in nominated. Thus, the only way to even have a prayer of getting a Republican in is to go with a pro life candidate.


This post is getting long but Roe is not the only issue with RG. He's also against the 2nd Amendment, anti family (on multiple levels), and has no qualms about spending us into oblivion!

All he needs to do is speak out clearly against judges assuming the power and the privileges of legislators.

It does not help Giuliani to say these things, because he has never said them before in his fairly long political history. In fact, he has said a lot of things which indicate that he DOES think that judges should have the power of legislators. He has cheered when judges have tossed things like Prop 187.

You won't find a single mention of Giuliani being opposed to judges sizing power to themselves prior to his presidential bid. This is just one of his many flip flops.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/11399