April 5, 2007

Giuliani On Federally-Funded Abortions, Take 3

It appears that Rudy Giuliani, intelligent man that he is, understands the damage he did to his efforts to connect with conservatives in his CNN interview yesterday. As Kathryn Jean Lopez posted at The Corner, Giuliani has started to climb down from his support of funding abortions with tax dollars:

MAYOR GIULIANI: What I said yesterday is what I've been saying throughout, I think in the last number of months publicly and privately for quite some time, which is I'm against abortion, I hate it, I wish there never was an abortion and I would council a woman have an adoption instead of an abortion but ultimately I believe an individual right and a woman can make that choice. I also, on public funding or funding of abortion said I would want to see it decided on a state by state basis. And what that means is I would leave the Hyde Amendment in place. It's been the law now, 17, 18 years, it's part of the constitutional balance that I talked about yesterday and the Hyde Amendment leaves the funding issue largely to the states. They have to decide how they're going to do it. And same thing on the issue that you're giving me now, which is I believe that the state should decide. And that's largely my approach not only in the area of abortion but in the area of guns and other things. I think these things are best decided on a state by state basis and would have as limited a federal role as the law requires. (Mayor Giuliani, Press Availability, Columbia, SC, 4/5/2007)

That tends to take us back to status quo ante. We knew that Giuliani supported choice while arguing for judicial restraint on the federal bench. When he started talking about abortion as a right and the requirement to fund abortions, that flew in the face of judicial restraint and fiscal conservativism. He has the date of the Hyde Amendment wrong (1976, 31 years ago), but if he will not act to end it or expand abortion funding past its limits on the federal level, he may have an argument that will mollify at least some of the people he angered yesterday.

Does this make it any better for CQ readers? I'm going to keep an open mind and open ears, but his interview stunned me yesterday with its tone-deafness.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Giuliani On Federally-Funded Abortions, Take 3:

» Rudy Plays Poker from bustardblog
I'd be terrified if I didn't have faith in the intelligence of the estimable Atrios. Today he discussed Rudy Giuliani's comments in South Carolina about abortion under the heading Almost have to respect Rudy. T.P.M. discussed how Rudy is divided [Read More]

Comments (31)

Posted by Karen [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 5:03 PM

I think he blew it. The fact he appeared to be endorsing expanding government spending on a "right" not explicit in the constitution (moral dilemma aside), is what makes me very cautious about him. Again, bring on Fred Thompson.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 5:17 PM

Much more troubling in that CNN interview, was how Rudy defined a "constructionist" (i.e. constructionism can mean that a badly-reasoned opinion, over time, becomes just as valid as the original text of the Constitution) That was his worst gaffe in my book. That just blew away any trust I had in him.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 5:18 PM

I think people need to remember that we are in the early days of this campaign and all of these people are going to be making all kinds of statements. I would be very surprised if Thompson does not say something some time that people do not like as well. If he does, will there just be a knee jerk reaction to write him off.

Bush is a prolifer and that has not kept conservatives from complaining about him.

I understand that this is a very emotional issue for a lot of people, but it is not the number one issue for most Americans.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 5:36 PM

Re: Terrye at April 5, 2007 05:18 PM

It's not just about abortion. Does Rudy believe that the US Constitution is just a big wall to throw stuff at, to see what sticks? He doesn't seem to know what he thinks now. We've had too much of that attitude in recent years from the Supremes. We need to keep putting originalists, like Roberts and Alito, on the bench. No more activists, please.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 5:44 PM

Since I personally witnessed Rudi Giuliani succomb to the flattery of unhappy voters in NYC in 2002, when he on NATIONAL TV suggested that IF they REALLY were unhappy with the election (of Bloomburg)...
[obviously someone "kicked him under the table" at that point]
...Whuh??? Whua...????

And it took him TWO WEEKS [of plummeting ratings] to apologize and THAT was a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT "apology" of SORTS...

Having myself with my own two eyes seen the lethal stumble and the "apology" of sorts, I'm not even SURPRISED at the Giuliani interview yesterday.

He can do nothing from this point on but REVEAL HIS TRUE INNER NATURE, and that is black as tar!

It is totally incompatible with ruling in Elected office under the American Constitution, with fiduciary merit.

Posted by upnorth [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 6:10 PM

Sorry Ed...SOSO from Rudy....He's a no go...no matter how he spins the abortion thing, his explanation is basically the same..supports abortion and public funding..and the public funding issue will hurt and hopefully end his presidential ambitions. He lost my support. It's really about supreme court nominations. He went too far.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 6:19 PM

Like I said ... at the end of the national nightmare which is the GWB faux war on terror in Iraq, all you have after the boys come home with Rudy is a basic northeastern NY liberal ... as it was before, it is now. But those of you who took Rudy at his word to put the Scalia's in place when openings come up, keep dreaming.

Romney is the same version of Rudy, albiet just a better looking man.

Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 6:21 PM

Everyone is going to have a gaffe know and then: what worries me is that my fellow conservatives seem awfully quick to pull the long knives and scream "See? I knew he'd betray us!" (Whoever "he" happens to be at the moment.) His explanation may have been fumbling, but it satisfies me.

Granted, Rudy's my #1 choice and, not being a social conservative, this gaffe doesn't bother me too much. (And agreeing to abide by the Hyde amendment mollifies my inner economic conservative.) But, folks, it's really early days in this race. Let's stay calm and wait to see what they all have to say before declaring one or another "the One and Only" or pronouncing anathema.

Posted by Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 7:55 PM

Giuliani is full of it. Here's a video of him running for mayor, stating unequivocally that he supports public funding for abortion.


Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Posted by Jim in Texas [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 8:07 PM

Yesterday will be the date that electoral historians point to and say

"That was the day when Rudy blew his chance to be the Republican party candidate for president."

Look, you can wash it up, put perfume and a pretty dress on it but it's still a pig in a dress.

He already was losing me on taxes (did I miss his promise not to raise taxes? anyone?)

But this was the moment when I realized I had been holding my nose.

Since it seems no potential president candidate is going to take the security of America seriously we might as well select a candidate based on his "presidential look"

Fred's got my early vote

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 8:46 PM

You know Rudy's in trouble with the "base" when even on this thread Rudy apologists are emerging. Some of his luster is starting to wear off.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 8:48 PM

Bush blew it.

Not Guiliani.

Plus, yesterday. Or the day before. Glenn Reynolds posted his latest worry with a link to Professor Bainbridge.

It seems there may be an opening soon, again, on the Supreme's. And, Renolds wrote of his concern that Bush will pick a dean from Yale: KOH.

As liberal a man as you can get. To fill the vacancy with a "push" towards affirmative action. Something Bush does with alacrity.

So at least you can be aware. And, be on the lookout to REJECT: KOH.

Forewarned is fore-armed.

While you should also remember that Ronald Reagan, in 1970, signed legalized abortion into law. While he was governor of California.

Rudy? Mayor of New York City. WHere plenty of democrats, seeing Dinkins DESTROYING NEW YORK CITY, then decided it was okay to vote for a member of the GOP party.

That's what happens when a party elects someone very, very bad.

Jimmy Carter? He was a disaster! But he opened the door to Ronald Reagan's election.

ANd, back in 1980? Believe it or not the CONSERVATIVE MESSAGE was: LESS GOVERNMENT. LESS TAXES.

Today? Does being "conservative" mean that we're going to increase our police state, by going after women who have abortions?

If you're defining down conservatism, you'll lose.

Plus, by picking Bush, in 1988. Over McCain. You put Bush #41 in office. ANd, he only got one term. He was defeated by Bill Clinton. And, then? You saw a two-term president, who was a democrat. ANd, popular.

The system for picking the nominee in 2008 has changed. It's no longer all the votes you can buy in Iowa. (Jimmy Carter won those Iowans, and rode his win into the White House. In 1976.)

While Bush took the conservatives into the mess you're now facing.

And, where the mainstream is going to be picking the nominee in 2007. Worth considering how expensive Bush has been. Becuase he's just the Realtor to the House of Saud.

And, Condi is incompetent.

Well? Affirmative action is a failure writ large.

Let alone when Bush does it, you gain no GOP ground whatsoever.

Keep an open mind.

Prohibition didn't help the WHIGS, back in 1856.

Lincoln figured out how to capitalize on the errors made by WHIGS. And, the GOP? Had 3 other front runners in 1860.

But the thing to note? Lincoln was NATIONALLY KNOWN. And, popular. He used this as he managed, in CHicago, in 1860, to get to the presiential nomination.

Perhaps, we'll see a similar thing, again? WHere the Moderates get to have a voice. Because the "darlings of the primaries," where it allowed the Bush's to win, actually is a loser's game, ahead.

But we shall see?

Or pigs fly.

Posted by LeaningRt [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 9:36 PM

"You know Rudy's in trouble with the "base" when even on this thread Rudy apologists are emerging. Some of his luster is starting to wear off."

Posted by conservative democrat at April 5, 2007 08:46 PM

Well cd, you certainly are a representative of the democratic party (although not as much as Monkei). Can you pick out the supportive statements of those that have posted against Rudy on this board that have now spoken against him? How's that? no.

This is the socially conservative branch of the party waiting to catch him in a gaffe.

For those that have spoken out against Rudy on this board, I don't speak negatively about you. You are socially conservative and have problems with Rudy's social life/governing. You have to stick with what you believe in and I'm sure that you would vote for Rudy if it comes down to a general race.

Rudy, despite how many sound bites you find, has been consistant. He does not want to change or effect the law on abortion. Can somebody on here name a time when a President in the past 30 years has made a change on that issue? Reagan, our most conservative President in the past 4 decades, made little effort or reference to changing the abortion laws in his two terms.

This is a NON-ISSUE unless you just want to align yourself with a conservative that holds all the same personal beliefs as you, ignoring their electability or leadership skills. So now that Thompson is in the race, some social conservatives are going to leave Rudy's side........can anybody tell me, in the 8 years Fred was in office, what landmark bills he spearheaded. Even McCain had a far more prestigious record in the Senate than Thompson. In time, this fact will be exposed.

Finally, I'd like to express my enjoyment of the left going after Rudy's socially liberal stances. They are scared to death of Rudy because they know he poses the greatest threat in a general election. They even denouce his social picadillos that they themselves have defended in their own law-makers. Keep it up CD, you bring an ear to ear grin to this handsome face.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 10:05 PM

Well cd, you certainly are a representative of the democratic party (although not as much as Monkei)

Well, first of all, leaning right, I doubt there is much leaning going on in your little part of the world, you aren't leaning right, you have fallen over to the right and can't get up.

Just because I don't toe your right wing wacko line does not make me a tree hugging peacenic liberal from the 70s. It only means I am to the left of you.

Scared of Rudy, hardly ... he is 10X the man GWB ever was and will be 20X the president GWB has ever been (he could even fail and do a better job). He and his wife will be a welcome resident in the WH after the incredible lame duck leaves.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 10:14 PM

There is nothing in Rudy's comments that would lead me to believe he has not read or does not respect the Constitution. He says let the states decide, if I had a dollar for everytime I heard a conservative say that I could pay off my car.

It is as if people are just looking for reasons to complain. This might well be why Thompson has not declared. Wasn't he on the list of people Bush put together to help him find Justices? Didn't Thompson support Miers? Maybe not, but if he did how long will it be before someone says, well so much for Thompson. If it is not that, it will be something else.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 10:27 PM


I like Bush, I would vote for him again and one of the reasons why is the insane and pathological hatred of silly people like you. I figure if Monkei starts drooling and twitching at the mention of his name, Bush can not be all bad.

But hey, look on the bright side. Pelosi is in the ME sucking up to dicators. Reid is threatening to force our surrender in Iraq so that we can kick of the much awaited and anticipated Iraqi/humanitarian disaster/genocide.

America's word will be crap and liberals can get back to giving pretty speeches while people die in the millions. We can overlook the thievery at the UN once again and at long last this silly democracy thing will be over.

Ah yes, and then of course there is the wanton poverty here in the US and the concentration camps and tens of thousands of political prisoners, etc. Yep, it has just been really tough.

But the good old days will return if Clinton wins. I can hardly wait, terrorists can get back to planning their attacks without any bothersome Bush on their tail. Hillary will no doubt work something out with them. And then there will be the dirty tricks, the indictments, and pardons and all the other stuff that always goes with the Clintons.

You can talk about Rove etc all you want, but when it comes to do just plain Dirty there are few people in Hillary's league. But she is a Democrat and for Democrats there is only today and tomorrow, there is no yesterday so she can always remake herself.

they were for the war before they were against it, they were for the surge before they were agains it, they were for funding the troops before they were against it, they were for the Iraq Study Group before they were against it.

Whatever works that is their motto.

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 10:32 PM

It was certainly not the smoothest expression provided by the former Mayor.

But it doesn't seem any different than his position long ago, and seems to be more about poor communication.

Not that I support his position, perhaps a number of Conservatives who have the abortion issue as a high priority, were hopeful for some major changes in Rudy's position.

Again, the reminder of the manipulative MSM is essential heading towards 2008.

Liberals often pretend to be Conservatives on the WWW, intending to undermine Republican support.

The MSM also knows the key items to weaken support from the Conservative base, for a very strong GOP candidate in the USA.

(* meaning threatening to the liberal partisans supporting the DNC)

Conservatives, and fine Pundits alike, should be very careful about hyperbole, created by a misleading MSM report.

But then again, we have watched the rush to judge, hurting Conservative interests for some time.

Liberals actually work to encourage Conservatives to undermine their own. Their best opportunity win elections, is to debase the opposition. Vilification and slander is part of their game, and this coming vote in 2008 will be quite ugly enough, without Conservatives helping them.

Rudy is worthy enough, to be provided a chance to fully explain his positions on a number of issues. Mr. Giuliani is very capable of providing a sound explanation, and has the character to be trusted with his proposed positions and convictions.

This is no 'con' artist, unless the former NYC Mayor has changed in dramatic fashion. (That is in the context of comparing him to other politicians. Few are as honest and clear as GW). With the old Rudy, what he states is principally what you will get.

Whether Conservative GOP Voters want it, is another story...

But regardless, I hope all Republican Candidates are given a fair chance by Conservatives, considered in a sincere fashion, so we can settle on the right choice to unite behind in a firm support for the Presidency.

Self interested divisions, those upset someone is not their ideal Candidate, should be fully prepared for the Democrat Party's troubling alternative.

Posted by LeaningRt [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 10:44 PM

Posted by: Monkei at April 5, 2007 10:05 PM

Sorry Minkei, I used you as and example because you are the most common and probably furthest to the left troll we have on here. Not that I shun trolls.....I troll a liberal blog and feel that any blog that lacks trolls is an exercise in masterbation.

In fact, even the pure mention of trolls on the DNC blog brings about the most vile of insults (and liberal use of the censure button by the administrators) that it makes my stomach turn.

By your statement, I realize that you are fairly close to center and one that can be reasoned with. Although I am a Bush fan, I agree that Rudy trumps Bush on leadership. What I like about Bush is that he does what he says and says what he does....a nice change from the Clinton era. You don't have to agree with Bush to admit that he is not exactly an enigma.

I don't dislike Thompson, but I'm waiting to see him revealed. Outside of being the "furthset to the right" candidate, what are his answers to the problems we face today? I don't mind a far right candidate. But it now seams that certain bloggers are favoring him purely for that persona.

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 10:59 PM

here's another point, in response to a few comments that push for Fred Thompson...

i don't believe i have ever witnessed Conservatives grasping fashion so easily.

Fred Thompson is wonderful. A great Actor, a sound lawyer, a lobbyist, and was indeed a fine Senator.

Don't forget Thompson endorsed John McCAIN, and worked on his campaign in 2000.

He also worked on The Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act. Which aided to the disastrous S&L crisis later on.

In all do respect to Fred Thompson, who may be the best President we have ever had, the hysteria is a little overt, and lacks basis.

Name a serious Conservative agenda Mr. Thompson created and passed in the Senate?

Why didin't he lead to major immigration reform, massive spending reductions, and recognizing the threats of Radical Muslim Militancy that the Clinton Administration was ignoring during the late 90s?

I may be repetitive, saying how fashionable hype helped undermine the needed support for the GOP in the 2006 election, and Conservative interests in Congress with it. But so many emotional mantras, (lacking objectivity, reason) were flying all around the Conservative arenas, such as 'leaving the borders wide open', 'selling our soveregnty to Dubai', etc., which led to weakening our resolve.

And I wonder if the Thompson bandwagon has similar traits. Yes, Fred Thompson is a welcome addition to the potential Presidential Talent the GOP is going to consider.

However, his experience as a CEO, a proven Governor, a tested Leader is actually quite minimal. He is also quite old.

It would be a tragedy, if Conservative voters didn't give a quality Candidate like Gov. Romney or Mayor Giuliani a fair chance. Both are proven leaders and managers, with impressive credentials.

Romney has some impressive Conservative convictions, which he demonstrated in a very liberal arena, with some intense political pressure, and he did not bend.

If they really want substance...

Shouldn't we at least slow down, and make certain we have it?

Posted by BD [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 11:03 PM

Per Terrye:

"[Rudy] says let the states decide, if I had a dollar for every time I heard a conservative say that I could pay off my car."

Or your house.

Unfortunately, if we had a dollar every time we heard a post-Reagan era 'conservative' actually DO that .... we'd all be broke.

And I say that as a Reagan era conservative.

Posted by Vail Beach [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 11:52 PM

This falls into the category of "what difference does it make?" positions by a presidential candidate.

Is there any possibility that federal funding of abortions will return? No. I doubt even a majority of pro-choice Democrats would embrace this very early-70s Swedish socialist-type of policy. But even if they did, there aren't enough of them to pass it, so Guiliani will never be given the opportunity to sign it.

He will also never have the opportunity to ban abortions. He can appoint judges, but no one knows how judges will rule on a specific case. No GOP president has gotten away with applying a pro-life litmus test to any judicial candidate.

Abortion is the ultimate boob bait for the right. There are some clear policy choices ahead. The candidates should all be judged on what choices they would make concerning those choices. Abortion doesn't make the top 25. It's a settled issue.

Posted by Karen [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 12:26 AM

Abortion is not a settled issue. My sister is a one issue voter, FOR abortion candidates. She is mid 50's baby boomer and I have found that the somewhat older female baby boomers are more rabid about this "men can NOT tell women what to do with their bodies" attitude than their younger counterparts.

For me, I take the war on terror very seriously. I am going to back the candidate who still believes and KNOWS there is evil in the world who makes it their life's mission to wipe out the US. An ancillary to that is securing our borders. I spent all of my life living in border states and it has just gotten unmanageable in all ways with illegal immigration (social services are overwhelmed, the public health systems are broke, the public schools are vast wastelands that don't educate the kids, I could go on).

I also want to manage my own retirement. Chile has already privatized their social security and those people are now better off than they would have been in the traditional formula. I want to keep the tax rates reasonable on the upper end. That creates jobs. I am President and CEO of a new green energy company and we plan to create lots of jobs. But, we have to have the belief that the government won't confiscate our profits so we can't grow.

I believe in school choice. The public schools have just not performed, and haven't in about 30 years. They are geared toward sub par sub mediocrity at the expense of educating our future leaders. Scarey.

The whole health care mess is beyond repair but turning that over to the government who has clearly demontrated it can't solve big problems (katrina, walter reed anyone?) would lead to rationing access to the basic health care needs. We can kiss goodby any innovation in health care if this is nationalized. I don't know this answer, but I do know that my sister, the liberal, is a doctor and the way medicaid works, she basically is forced to treat those patients for free. I resent the government confiscating her productive time and not paying her for it.

These are all the issues I am looking at. What I do know is that ANY democrat candidate will make all of these problems that need to be addressed WORSE. And if the democrats maintain their hold in Congress, we have an ongoing nightmare that might take a generation to recover.

Posted by TomTom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 12:36 AM

Look, there is no- zero - no basis for abortion on demand in the Constitution, nor of the privacy imputation on which the Supremes founded it. There have been over 30 million Americans sucked out of uteri since Roe. This has had huge demographic consequences, viz. the illegal Mexican flood. This is not a small potatoes issue for the nation, either morally or demographically or socially ("Press one for English, para Espanol, ocho" etc). That Reagan didn't see this incipient tidal wave is irrelevant. We, and he, all make mistakes, but do we admit that promptly and correct them?
Rudy was mayor of NYC, for Pete's sake. Whaddaya expect? I'll vote for him in the general only because any Dem is the kiss of death for the Nation.

Posted by Karen [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 12:53 AM

Well, in the dark humor of things, most of the aborted fetuses were babies of liberals. So in a way, they harmed their own demographics. However, they are doing a good job at demonizing republicans to the illegal immigrants, so I guess they have their replacement votes all lined up.

Posted by Tristan [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 4:37 AM

This is great. Everyone's a twitter about Rudy's stance on abortion, and how it's going to ruin his chances for his run for the Presidency. But not one seems to pay attention to Rudy's stance on guns in the hands of private citizens.

It seems that Ed and his friends at CQ are more concerned about Rudy's support for a 31 year old federal law, than Rudy's consistent (And potentially illegal, depending on how the court rules) attacks on the 2nd amendment. A constitutional amendment over 200 years old.

Remind me again who's lost their perspective?

Posted by jpmn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 6:35 AM

If you want another RINO who can win then Rudy is your guy. He is finding a Constitutional requirement for funding abortion, but not a Right to bear arms. One right is clearly written in the Bill of Rights the other is found nowhere.

Yet you want this guy picking Judges who will support the Constitution. I think we have better choices.

Posted by pilsener [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 9:09 AM


If Rudy Giuliani wants the Repulbican nomination his image has to be the traits above. His policy positions in New York, and his personal life are part of the record, and they don't square with the views of Republican primary voters.

He has a chance for the nomination if he is seen as a strong, no BS, I'll stand up to the bad guys (our foreign enemies, the media, the Democrats) leader. If he says one thing one day, and waffles the next on what his plain words meant, then he loses.

Posted by Rich V [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 9:25 AM

I think despite his "warts" that Rudy is the best bet for the Republican Party this time around...he's a true moderate, and by showing the country that our party is NOT ruled "by the base", that we are true "big tent" party, we will both win the presidency but by running moderates for congress we will return that to our party's control as well.

Posted by SoldiersMom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 4:40 PM

It's way to early in this race to discount anyone yet. I'm a two issue voter, someone who strongly supports our efforts to defeat worldwide terrorism and someone who is committed to nominating strict constructionist judges to the court.

I've been a strong supporter of GWB because he hasn't backed down in this WOT. My biggest regret is he's not a moving speaker (nor am I, so at least I understand him). Rudy is a very persuasive and moving speaker. I love watching him debate Colmes on Fox.

Before I throw my vote his way though, I want him to clearly define his thoughts on what constitutes a judicial constructionist. It worries me that his definition and mine may differ.

I'm sickened by the Courts making whole law by reading tea leaves. "Making law" is the key phrase here also. The left has usurped this function, via judges, from the legislature.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 9:18 PM

Posted by: jpmn



Nailed it down in a nutshell!


Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 9:42 PM

Before I throw my vote his way though, I want him to clearly define his thoughts on what constitutes a judicial constructionist. It worries me that his definition and mine may differ.

I'm sickened by the Courts making whole law by reading tea leaves. "Making law" is the key phrase here also. The left has usurped this function, via judges, from the legislature.

Posted by: SoldiersMom



It worries me that I KNOW his definitions and mine most certainly differ - he has proven that, before!

And on top of that, he has proven what his word is worth, while he is a courtin' and wooin'.

No. Rudi doesn't have what it takes to remind me of what I am looking for.