Rudy on SCOTUS...
By mbecker908 Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From Solutions America (Rudy's website) a paragraph that shocked me.
First of all, I know there's an election in 5 days and I don't mean to detract from that, but since I'm old and I misplaced my short term memory, I hope you'll forgive me for posting this now. If I don't, I'll forget by this time next week.
At this point I am a supporter of Rudy in '08. That said, while I've felt for some time that he would be "reliable" on SCOTUS and judicial nominees, I'd seen nothing to move that from the "feeling" category into the "confident" category.
Until a few minutes ago.
While in Ohio, Rudy called into the Bill Cunningham radio show. Speaking about the Supreme Court, Rudy said: "Justices Roberts and Alito were both colleagues of mine [in the Reagan Justice Department] - people I worked with and I admire tremendously. I thought that they were inspired choices that the President made - inspired in many ways, because they also were people who had a strong conservative background and strict constructionists." He added, "Justice Scalia was also a colleague of mine...and he probably would have been my choice for Chief Justice."
[emphasis is mine]
Oh, be still my heart!!! And a greatful hat tip to the guys at race42008.com.
Giuliani has some distance to travel with social conservatives and his position on judicial selection is critical. If he can demonstrate that his commitment to nominate SCOTUS judges in the mold of Scalia and Roberts overrides any policy views on abortion or gay marriage, he will have made significant progress.
I just find it hard to believe that Rudy will A) stick to his guns if he has to make a selection during politically tumultuous times or will he buckle to pressure to select a "consensus" candidate like Callahan or Prado and/or B) because Rudy isn't an idealogue, will he recognize a Souter when he sees one? Will he be able to spot a Scalia when he sees one?
Something in me just trusts Mitt Romney a little more on this one, but Rudy is lightyears ahead of John McCain in my book. Rudy at least wants to do the right thing on the issue of the judiciary, I believe. John McCain will stab us in the back at the first opportunity, I'm sure of it.
I still don't trust Rudy on judges, though this goes some way in establishing some trust. But I put McCain lightyears ahead of Rudy, and if the choice was between the two, I would pull the lever for McCain 10 times out of 10, at this point (though outside of Hagel, Pataki, and Frist (or any Dem likely to get the nomination), I'd rather vote for anyone else than McCain).
McCain had his opportunity to show he was serious about supporting quality judges, but he decided instead to prioritize senatorial comity and take the filibuster off the table.
He won't get my vote in the primary. In the general election, I'll swallow hard and vote against Hillary, Obama, etc.
Would you indeed vote for John McCain over Hillary Rodham Clinton? Are you sure? In an age when the president of the United States can launch nuclear missiles, of the two, whom would you trust with your life?
There is a very serious matter of temperament here. As much as one dislikes Mrs. Clinton, it is hard to imagine her frivolously starting a nuclear war. (Mr. Clinton? That is another matter. But she is not he.) If you think it in that woman's character to shoot off a random nuke, then you estimate character differently than I. But a President McCain? A frivolous nuclear launch by him is all too easy to imagine.
My doubts about Mr. McCain are spectral, not substantial; I admit it. I do not know if Mr. McCain is actually slightly mad, or if I am just a flawed judge of character, but look into the man's eyes and decide for yourself. You can see it there. The man is a visionary.
I would never vote Clinton over McCain for senate, but the presidency is another matter. Let us pray that it never comes to such a choice.
but you're over the top even for me! I am on record, lots of times, as saying I would not vote for JM no matter who was on the ballot, but him popping a nuke just for the heck of it never entered my mind.
I've got lots of reasons to not vote for McCain, yours isn't one of them.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I would have a hard time voting for JM over HRC because of the judgment issue as well, not because I think he is going to start lobbing nukes for no reason, but because I don't have any trust in his judgment in peacetime and especially not in wartime.
HRC might be wrong about a whole lot and her character might leave a lot to be desired, but I am confident that she is entirely rational. I can't say the same about JM. I put him in the same category as Ross Perot -- not fit for the office under any circumstances.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I've said and still believe that McCain is irrational. I just don't think the nuke issue is of particular concern with him or any other, even fringe, POTUS candidate. I may be silly, but I think there are enough people around the POTUS to mitigate concern about randomly lobbing nukes. Heck, I wasn't even concerned about Carter... :>) (at least and only in that regard)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
There is frivolity and there is frivolity. My earlier expression was inexact. One does not imagine Mr. McCain exclaiming, "Corn flakes for breakfast again? I don't want corn flakes; I want waffles! Let's nuke Quebec!"
Rather, think Suez/Hungary, 1956. President Eisenhower's management of that crisis can be criticized, but he certainly did not let it spiral out of control. And if despite Eisenhower's efforts it had come to the brink of World War III then, then at least one could have trusted the man to be rational. Anyone who thinks that he knows how level-headedly a President McCain might react to such a sudden, unexpected cascade of events, knows more than I do.
If it helps, because we don't like Mrs. Clinton as a politician, imagine Rudolph Giuliani or Mitt Romney at the helm of state in such a crisis. Then imagine Mrs. Clinton. Then imagine Mr. McCain.
It's a man "who sticks to his guns."
I like Rudy. He's a decent guy. You have to take everything with a grain of salt but I also wonder if he may actually become more conservative on a national stage. Could the venue in which you operate sometimes drive the policy you create? Who knows. I could see him having to make more liberal compromises in NYC than a red city. He would still always be a more moderate republican but could have the freedom to do things a bit differently. I hope its not just wishful thinking.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan
view, Abortion, death penalty, gun control, His view is that the Federal government ought to let the states decide. Federalism is a conservative view. His personal views on those issues don't play well outside of NY, and a few other places. but if he were president the only thing that matters is his stand on federalism and strict construction.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
...but for federalism to have a chance, that one branch of the federal govt that was supposed to be the weakest would have to let it. So as you say, Giuliani would have to be a true believer in Scalia-type judges.
He's not an idiot. He knows that, long term, he's in a dogfight with Mitt Romney. Getting on the right side of the Federalist Society isn't stupid.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
Rudy generally is a man of his word.
This also suggests that he is starting to realize that he can't just sit around and expect to have the 2008 nomination handed to him on a platter when faced with opponents like McCain and Romney.
This bears further watching.
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing it. If he couldn't keep his word to his wife, how can I expect him to keep his word to me?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
you won't support a candidate who is divorced?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I'm saying I'd have a hard time believing the words from the mouth of a candidate who was unfaithful to his wife.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
When those words are "I love gun control and think it's a wonderful thing, but I won't support anti-gun legislation at the Federal level for federalist reasons." He would have to go a lot farther than that to earn my support.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
nomination proccess that led me to believe he was in favor of and would support the nomination of strong originalist/strict constructionist/etc type judges.
I think this is one reason I like Rudy as a candidate in spite of his pro choice views.
That said I still don't think I could support him in a primary at this point, but his words, if they are promises and not pandering make me more comfortable with him as a possible candidate.
I can't say I am really behind any of the '08 possibles at this point, I have a list of "no ways" more so than I have a list of "gotta be this guy."
Rudyblogger was the first to break this big news on Giuliani Blog.
I have never doubted that Rudy would be tough on judges. This is just further confirmation that is is more than solid on this issue.
I was able to ask Rudy about judges in person back in August, and he was equally unequivocal regarding what type of judges he would nominate:
(from my original report):
“I don’t understand how you cannot be for strict constructionist judges.”-Rudy Giuiani
Rudy spoke of his time as a federal prosecutor and how he knows from experience the importance of this issue. He spoke glowingly of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito (I believe he mentioned something to the effect of “You have to be happy with the President’s choices of Roberts and Alito” [emphasis Rudy’s]). He ended this discussion by stressing that law is to be made by legislatures, not judges who base their opinions on how they happen to feel that day.
----------------------------------------------------
The original story can be read here:
http://race42008.com/2006/08/30/rudy-raises-money-for-mark-kennedy-gives...
www.race42008.com