The Cranky Conservative: Is McCain or Giuliani More Trustworthy on Judges?
The Cranky Conservative asks: "Would John McCain or Rudy Giuliani be more likely to appoint the sort of Justice(s) who would overturn Roe v. Wade?"
My answer: neither is trustworthy when it comes to the nomination of Supreme Court Justices. They both have a history - Rudy with the appointment of liberal judges in New York (not to mention his view that a "strict constructionist" could be someone who upholds Roe), and McCain with the "Gang of 14" as well as his insistence that a Supreme Court Justice would have to uphold the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold legislation - that makes them complete wildcards when it comes to judicial nominations. I would give a slight edge to Rudy only because he has made overtures to conservatives on the issue of judges, whereas McCain seems to care less about convincing us in this regard.
Nevertheless, the death of the pro-life movement within the GOP, to which the election of Rudy would almost certainly lead, vastly outweighs whatever miniscule advantage he may have over McCain when it comes to judges.
Labels: Constitutional Jurisprudence, Elections, Judiciary, Law, Pro-Life, Republicans, RINOs, Supreme Court
posted by Pro Ecclesia 10:17 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I would say, on a trustworthiness scale of 1 - 100, that Giuliani rates about a 3, while McCain comes in around 7.
I might give Romney a 12. Huckabee around 30 or so.
By contrast, I'd rate Ron Paul around 80 or 90.
So, of McCain or Giuliani, definitely McCain. But I'm not very intersted in those choses.
just my two cents -
for some reason Romney strikes me as the least trustworthy of all the candidates.
JulieannI - his record of appointing liberal judges speaks for itself. His recent switch on gun controla also does not fool me.
I believe the sad and scary thing about this race is conservatives all over are "settling" on a candidate. I believe a person needs to "believe" in the candidate and not settle. Unfortunately in this election that does not appear to be an option for many.
McCain Fiengold - never read it and don't care too. I think all of these politicians are full of "it" when it comes to money in the campaigns.
I find the amount spent to date on just our presidential primaries - disgusting. I would hate to see the final total after the general election.
I'm sorry I will never buy limiting money in campaigns is the same as violating someone's free speech.
God gave us two hands and two feet... if these campaigns run low on money - go knock some darn doors! Go EARN your votes!
Hard, soft or whatever - the money being spent has turned our presidential election into a circus event.
I am almost to the point where I would not let any of our candidates even tie my shoes!
If you're judged by the company you keep...
http://redstatenetwork.com/blogs/brad_smith/2008/jan/22/judicial_selections_who_do_the_law_professors_endorse
I would imagine law professors would be partial to a candidate with a background in law. Especially if they served time with him during the Reagan Administration.
Therefore, I take such endorsements with a grain of salt. I have the utmost respect for a man like former Solicitor General Ted Olsen, for example. His conservative credentials are unquestionable. But you'll forgive me if I question his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, given their past working relationship.
I was thinking more of Romney, who has attracted Mary Ann Glendon (now ambassador to the Vatican) and Doug Kmiec. Seems like some pretty staunch Catholic folks there.
McCain can claim some fairly solid Catholic support as well:
Two Catholic Pro-Life Advocates Endorse John McCain's GOP Presidential Bid
... Austin Ruse is the current president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a pro-life group that lobbies at the United Nation and Cathy is the former chief pro-life spokeswoman for the nation's Catholic bishops...
But that certainly doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to jump on the McCain bandwagon.
Thanks for the link and input. For what it's worth, I think I lean towards your take so far, Jay.
I agree with Jay. Neither McCain nor Giuliani can be trusted to appoint strict constructionists/originalists to the court. McCain was the leader of the Gang of 14, inter alia, and Giuliani has a history of appointing social liberals and, of course, his own views on divorce, gay marriage and pro-abortion are socially liberal.
While I appreciate Ron Paul's apparent judicial philosophy, I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. Essentially, Ron Paul is a libertarian in Republican clothes. As much as I agree with him on the issue of pro-life, I think he's dead wrong when it comes to Iraq and legalizing drugs. If he pursues such policies, he'll get a lot of people killed through his naievete.
National Review has endorsed Romney. More importantly, in the arena of jurists, Justice Robert Bork has endorsed Romney. I think this is significant because Bork's opinion carries a lot of weight with conservatives, particularly conservative attorneys like myself who understand that Bork is an originalist/strict constructionist and wants other such justices nominated to the court. I think it's also significant that Giuliani was not able to pull the wool over Bork's eyes with respect to a promise to pick conservative jurists, as he did with Pat Robertson. Bork wasn't fooled. Bork, not incidentally, is also a convert to Catholicism and teaches at Ave Maria School of Law.
That Romney has also received the endorsement of Mary Ann Glendon, also carries a lot of weight with me. At this point, I'm leaning towards Romney, but not without some reservations, which you can read more about in my own blog. There really isn't any other candidate who comes close to being where I want a candidate to be on ALL the issues.
Post a Comment
<< Home