Posted by
Maudie in Mandeville on Monday, May 14, 2007 10:15:07 PM
There's something troubling about Rudy. We know he's pro-choice (but personally against it), he would appoint 'strict constructionists' to the Supreme Court, and doesn't believe there should be a litmus test on "Roe against Wade" (Rudy's qu.eer label for Roe v. Wade).
If Rudy gets the conservative Christian vote (pro-life), he wins. So why all this twisting and turning on the abortion issue? The more he is asked about abortion, the less genuine he sounds. It also seems to belie his trumpeting about no litmus test for overturning Roe. In Rudy's case, certainly not any litmus, but it seems there could be a "How important is stare decisis?" (respect for legal precedent) question. Rudy's pro-choice handlers could certainly come up with a list of 20 or 30 wannabe's who have proven that they would have upheld Dred Scott. And is a 'strict constructionist' someone who would vote to overturn a law "the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found"? or that was simply "Heavy-handed judicial intervention"?, or which "borders on the indefensible"? Sound alot like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito?
These and other quotes against the Roe decision come from liberals of the first order, from Lawrence Tribe to Alan Dershowitz. If Roe is considered by legal scholars of all stripes to be a "lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions", what's Rudy's problem? Strict constructionists would find Roe "not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
If Rudy's silly handlers would have had him state that he will appoint strict constructionists and that based on even Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz type liberals, Roe is on shaky ground, it doesn't matter what a president's view on this issue is; he is only one vote in his home state once the law is overturned. The fact is, Rudy is appealing to pro-choice voters. So be it.
update 7/16/07: Giuliani to Reveal Five-Star Conservative Judicial Advisory Panel