Posted by
Hard Right with No Apologies on Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:24:48 PM
"Trust me," Rudy Giuliani says in effect to the conservative (mostly Christian) bloc of potential voters across America. "Sure, I've been married three times, mainly because of my marital infidelities and continual pursuit of some woman who is worthy of me. Yes, I am on record as being pro-choice. Buy hey! When it comes to Roe v. Wade, believe me, as President I would nominate strictly Constitutional scholars, people who read the Constitution as the Founding Fathers wrote it and meant it, not those who would seek to interpret it to meet their own preconceived notions."
He reiterated this claim to a group of influential South Carolina Republicans in February this year as he stumped for their support in the primary yet a year away. "I would want judges who are strict constuctionists because I am," he told them. "Those are the kind of judges I would appoint--Scalia, Alito, and Roberts."
Oh, really? Let's examine the record.
It's a trustworthy axiom that the best way to predict a person's future actions is to review his past. Human Resource professionals do it all the time in making hiring decisions. So let's see what kind of judges Rudy Giuliani appointed when he had the opportunity.
The Mayor of New York City has the authority to appoint judges to three of the state's lower courts: the Criminal Court, the Family Court, and the Civil Court. A review of the 75 judges whom Giuliani appointed during his eight years as mayor shows that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1 in those appointments.
Hmmmm. Not looking good so far, Rudy.
Let's look at a few of the more noteable appointments Giuliani, in his wisdom, made to the courts. One, Michael Sonberg, was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges (yes, Virginia, there is such an organization). Another, Charles Posner, ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sunday was unconstitutional because it harkened back to the Judeo-Christian ethic "which has so shackled this nation" (his words). A third, Dora Irizarry, was backed by ultra-liberal New York Senator Charles Schumer for an elevation to the federal bench even though the American Bar Association rated her "not qualified" because of her tendency to be gratuitously rude and abrasive to defendants and to fly off the handle when her rulings on objections were challenged in court. Why would Schumer support such an adolescent tyrant, especially when she listed her political affiliation as Republican? The answer: Judge Irizarry is strongly pro-choice. "Temperament is not at the top of my list," Schumer explains. "Ideology is key."
So Giuliani's history of appointments is troubling to conservatives. But just as Winston Churchhill once observed, "Anyone who is young and not liberal doesn't have a heart; anyone who is mature and not conservative doesn't have a brain." So perhaps Rudy Giuliani just required a bit longer than most people to grow up--say, three marriages and two terms as Mayor of New York City. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he means what he says when he talks of nominating people on the order of Roberts, Alito, and Scalia to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Uh, oh. On a recent CNN interview, when asked his personal opinion on Roe v. Wade, Rudy said "I'm strongly pro-choice." When asked what that means, he replied "I believe every woman should have the Constitutional right to exercise reproductive choice" (and that's a direct quote). The interviewer asked Rudy on this matter of appointing strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. "How do you think your appointees would vote on Roe v. Wade?" he asked. "Well," Giuliani replied, "they might find that Roe v. Wade was bad law and throw it out. On the other hand, they might opt for precedent, saying 'Roe v. Wade is settled law and therefore should stand.' There's no way of knowing how they'd vote."
The interviewer was good. That's strange, because CNN is Ted Turner's creation, and he's a screaming liberal if there ever was one. But in this instance, his employee did his job quite thoroughly. "So," he pressed Giuliani, "if a woman can't afford this constitutional right to abortion, should public funds be used to pay for it?" "Absolutely," Rudy replied. "Absolutely."
Think about that. If a person wants to commit murder, I have to pay for it. I, who abhor abortion, have to aid and abet a woman who wants one.
Not only is that arrogance so egregious as to be almost incomprehensible, the whole premise is ludicrous. Americans have the right to own firearms according to the 2nd Amendment. The last time I looked, that was clearly a constitutional right. Does that mean that if I can't afford a gun, public tax funds should be used to buy one for me?
Giuliani's statements in the CNN interview, combined with his record of judicial appointments in New York, are stark proof that Rudy Giuliani is no more than a lying, two-faced politician who is dancing the tune de jour for votes. Clearly, he has absolutely no compunction against authorizing the murder of a fetus in the womb and would not go one step out of his way to appoint judges who would make that atrocious practice illegal. Any Christian and/or conservative who casts a vote for Rudy Giuliani is voting for the continuing reign of Satan over this world.
Giuliani's stance on abortion brings up another very interesting point, one which has not been properly explored in conservative media. The seven Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of unlimited abortion in 1973 justified their votes on the basis of a "right to privacy" which they said was somehow implied in the 14th Amendment. Or maybe in the "penumbra" of the Constitution, they assured us. Whatever. It's in there. Just trust us.
You know, that's very odd. I happen to own a copy of the Constituon of the United States of America. I've read, re-read, and read again the penumbra (introduction) of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. To my great surprise, the words "privacy" and "abortion" don't appear in these sections. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see those two words anywhere in the entire document. The point is unmistakable: those seven judges were going to push through a carte blanche national authority to murder unborn children whether or not there was anything even resembling such authority in the supreme law of the land. Roe v. Wade is supported by a pillar of hot air, not substance, and has been for thirty-four long years and nearly fifty million murdered children.
Conservative friends, choose carefully. Examine each candidate like the Bereans examined Scripture, and cast a vote based upon knowledge and wisdom, not fancy dance steps.
Posted by Hale Meserow
April 12, 2007