ConfirmThem

My anger against Roe is the way it robs states of jurisdiction in a matter that belongs exclusively to them according to the Constitution. By basically saying that he doesn't want Roe overturned (i.e. he doesn't want the right of any woman to choose an abortion, regardless of state law, to be terminated), he is basically saying that he doesn't support federalism. Logically, it seems impossible for a pro-choice judge to also be a federalist who believes that all rights unenumerated in the Constitution belong to the states.

Agreed. I am so sorry to see how flawed is his understanding of Roe, abortion, and the proper judicial role. Here's one quote he had recently: "Ultimately, there has to be a right to choose...."

No, there does not have to be a RIGHT to choose. There never was one in the whole history of this great nation, not until a third-rate judge by the name of Blackmun created it in 1973. It is certainly a reasonable position to argue there should be the option or ability to choose abortion - I could support that from Giuliani, as it would be a political position. However, he is arguing for the constitutionality of abortion, and that demonstrates either a purposeful disregard for the Constitution or an ignorant and flawed understanding of the Constitution and our federal system of government. Either way, Giuliani's position is untenable. Too bad.

I recommend that everyone watch the entire Giuliani speech. He says a lot of the right things about judges. He invokes original meaning and textualism (not in those exact words) as the touchstones of a good jurist. He praises Silberman by name and points to the Parker decision as an example of a good originalist opinion. Giuliani says that when judges go beyond originalism, they intrude on our freedom and liberty of self-government.

Of course, as MF points out, Giuliani repeatedly refers to a "right" to abortion, which seemingly undercuts the sincerety of his other words. But as Andrew notes, it is possible that Giuliani is using the term "right" loosely to refer to a politically protected right, not a judicially protected one. That interpretation would be consistent with his previous observation that a strict constructionist could overrule Roe because it is bad law or could uphold Roe because it is long-standing precedent.

Giuliani is giving the conservative base more in the way of promises on judges than even W. did: he's not only naming Scalia, Thomas , Roberts and Alito (and Silberman!) as model jurists, but is setting forth a clear and somewhat sophisticated defintion of "strict constructionist" that we'd all readily endorse. I still don't trust him completely on this issue, but given his upside (I think he stands a far better chance of winning the general election than any of our other guys), I continue to think he may be a risk worth taking, with an eye towards holding him to his word if he wins. Because above all else, we need to win this election to finish the job of remaking the Court.

You make a compelling argument, and it's for those points that I'm sticking with Giuliani as the most viable and winnable option, unless Fred Thompson gets in the race. I could certainly live with a Giuliani-Thompson ticket, a Giuliani-Romney ticket, or a Thompson-Romney ticket. (And that's obviously only picking from the presidential candidates as they now stand, with no consideration to VP possibilities like Pawlenty, Sanford, Huckabee, Gilmore, Rice, etc. Also, someone like former MD gov Ehrlich would be an excellent VP candidate. I leave out Gingrich because, though I love him, I don't think he'll ever have enough general appeal.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271356,00.html

He has interesting take on Romneys flip flop on abortion.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/romneys_moral_thought....

May 12, 2007
Romney's Moral Thought
By William F. Buckley

There is pretty outspoken derision, on the hustings, on the matter of Mitt Romney and his evolved stand on abortion. In Iowa, which Romney recently visited, a county chairman accosted a skeptic. What he said was that Romney's opposition to abortion was the result of a "thoughtful moral process." People on the other side, whether of Romney, or of abortion, are expressing their skepticism.
x x x x x

What I have found most arresting is the refusal of so many in the pro-choice army to submit the question to "thoughtful moral process," as we have been told Mitt Romney did. One can choose to ignore the moral question, but one cannot easily decline to acknowledge that there is a moral question underlying the dispute.

We need to remind ourselves that deep moral questions have at other times in American history engaged public thought. It is at least strange, but we need to remind ourselves of it, that many years after the founding of the Republic, it simply was not questioned that there existed a class of human beings who were slaves, and that it was a right of an American who bought such a creature at a public auction to direct that slave's life as one would a mule's.

We all know that slavery eventually became a fissiparous question that finally brought on a civil war. But what lingers in the mind is that perfectly good, kind, intelligent and well-read people accepted the institution, many without question, for years. If Thomas Jefferson could own slaves, where to find someone of higher sensibilities to rule that slave ownership was a grievous moral offense?

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."
x x x x

The movement to eliminate thought on abortion has failed. Failed, because there is an assertive human point at issue, which cannot be denied consideration, any more than the question of slavery could forever be denied consideration.

Mitt Romney is hardly entitled to the Republican nomination just because he has confessed his doubts on the subject of abortion. But moral history is likely to bow its head to remark this sign of life of the moral conscience.
-- Milton Friedman, W

Just to be clear, Giuliani does NOT name Thomas as a type of justice he would like to see on the Supreme Court. That's a little upsetting since, after reading Supreme Conflict, I think it is apparent that Thomas is our most muscular originalist/federalist/strict constructionist.

When I was out west last summer, I realized something that was not known to me at the time. A lot of the western states (not just Utah) have sizable Mormon communities. Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, etc. are all in this group of states. Just think Idaho has two Mormon senators. Nevada and Oregon both have one: Reid and Smith. Electorally, these red states are the ones that are most likely to turn blue next time. With Romney on the top of the ticket, we should be able to hold the mountain west states and maybe even add an Oregon. For his VP, I like John Engler - the 3 time governor of Michigan. Romney's dad was also a gov from MI. That could be the one two punch to paint MI red. If the GOP wins MI, it becomes almost impossible electorally for the Dems to get enough electoral votes to win. That ticker should also do well in other mid west states. What do you think?

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/fred_thompson_live

I like Romney. I think it's interesting that Romney is treated much more favorably here then over at RedState. That suggests that - at least until Fred Thompson enters the race - there is consensus here that Romney would probably be the best on judges.

I think your observations about Romney in the west are apt. I would also suggest that he won in Massachusetts - so he knows how to win over voters who aren't exactly prone to vote Republican otherwise.

I think that Romney will ask Jeb Bush to be his running mate so that he can be sure that Florida is nailed down. It is after all the biggest electoral prize that could slip away. Romney is showing his strenght in Michigan by leading there among the GOP field, and as long as their governor continues to screw up their state, I think that the state might be very receptive to Mitt Romney anyway.

I wish John Engler would run for the Senate.

is a lost cause. This was a thing on Foxnews today about how Romney "destroyed" the GOP there. Romney realized that he was not going to be re-elected because he was too conservative for that state and bowed out to focus on president. All states north of the Mason-Dixon line are a lost cause. We don't need them anyway. With the way New England states keep losing population, after the next census, they will lost 5-7 more electoral votes. I believe that is the latest project from the Commerece Dept.

As of 5/12

1--Yoda
2--Darth Vader
3--Leia and Artoo Dee Two
4--Luke

My vote's still for Luke, but I might switch if there's little change later next week. Yoda yes, Darth no.

I wasn't suggesting that Mitt would win Taxachusetts. But he does have the ability to sway independent and moderate voters. Not enough to win Massachusetts, but maybe enough to tilt close states his direction.

I'm not sure that Guiliani / Romney will appeal to the base enough since both are seen as squishy. I could see it work, I guess, because of the Western states thing.

Thompson in the equation either as the #1 and either Guiliani or Romney as the #2 I could see (except I can't see Guiliani take the #2 slot that easily).

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

Yeah, my sense is Giuliani has no interest in being vice president.

I really want to see Mike Pence as the VP if we can't get him installed as Speaker of the House in a permanent Republican majority committed to slashing spending and spurring innovative conservative government reform. He would make a tremendous president one day.

Likewise, if Ted Cruz goes the electoral path, he would make a tremendous president one day. And there would be no need to worry about his SCOTUS nominees. :-)

Banana Republican, Giuliani does name Thomas as one of his model jutices. This is discussed in the Laura Ingraham interview that Giuliani did last week. (She clerked for Thomas and brings it up.)

Here's the link to the Laura Ingraham interview:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/08/audio-brawl-laura-ingraham-vs-rudy...

Ingraham mentions that Giuliani has mentioned Scalia and Roberts, and Giuliani interjects that he'd also name Thomas and Scalia (he means Alito) and that "those are the four".

Last I checked, Giuliani left Thomas off the list on his website (it did mention Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, however,) and he has repeatedly used the names Scalia, Roberts, and Alito when asked what type of Supreme Court justice he is looking for. I've seen him list Thomas before, as here, only when it's drug out of him (in this case by a former Thomas clerk, as you noted.) To me, this suggests that Giuliani would be VERY reticent to name someone he knew to be close to Thomas's jurisprudence (i.e. Thomas clerks.) Which is a shame because Margaret Ryan, Allison Eid, John Yoo, Jim Chen, and Gregory Coleman would all be excellent Supreme Court justices.

My guess is that neither would want the other nominee to be from the northeast. So, they would look for some geographical balance. Condi's from Colorado and California? Watts of Oklahoma would be more than OK! Pence would be fine. I'd love to have Jeb as veep, but I don't know if folks are ready for another Bush yet (Memo to Hillary--52% say they won't vote for you). Tommy Franks, p'raps? Thompson? Pawlenty? Kyl (the other Arizona senator!)? Barbour? The list goes on. Very fine possibilities.

And remember--vote Yoda or Luke, not Darth!

is originally from Alabama, I believe. she went to school at the University of Denver, and was provost (?) at Stanford before going to work for Bush. I'd love to see her on the ticket, but her supposed (I don't know how accurate those suppositions really are, seeing as she is the daughter of a preacher, but I get the sense that on whatever issues she's not really conservative, she IS that rare, true moderate, not a liberal, so there's that) more moderate social stances might not help balance that potentially troubled aspect of the ticket for any of the leaders (though she obviously brings other very strong balances). I'd guess she'd be listed as a Californian for purposes of the election.

Tom Ridge could be a smart pick for veep, but I believe he too has a moderate reputation that wouldn't help Rudy, John, Mitt, or Fred (despite the current inexplicable belief of some conservatives that he's more one of us than Mitt or even John), any one. Nonetheless, he'd probbaly lock down Pennsylvania, which would be huge, especially with the troubles of the local party in Ohio (though Rudy or McCain especially would probably have a better than even chance of carrying PA without him, since Bush wasn't that far off, especially in 2004). Of the four, Ridge would seem probably to be the best fit/most likely for Fred, IMO, either because of a real or percieved lack of conservative credentials on the part of the POTUS candidate (esp. Rudy), or because the others seem to have other early favorites (esp. McCain w/ Pawlenty). He also doesn't bring any geographic diversity for either Mitt or Rudy.

I'm shocked and a little put off at the audacity of Thompson and his 8 years as a Senator to think the Vice Presidency is beneath him though. I can see McCain not wanting to be veep because of his age (though Thompson's not much younger) and his long Senate career, and that type of "arrogance" (not really used perjoratively, but for lack of a better word) from the mayor of the largest city in the country is perhaps understandable, but for someone who was appointed to finish a term and then ran once??

Good points, all. And you're right about her growing up in Alabama. When I've heard her talk about social issues, she does seem to have the minimum acceptable conservative viewpoints--i.e., I believe she's against partial birth abortion, for parental notification, and so on.

I would very much like to see someone do in the upper tier states (Minn., Wisconsin, Michigan, and PA) do what Reed did in the south, inc. Florida. Granted, most of the south wasn't that tough and conservative immigration to Florida helped, but he nailed that region down. All four are potentially winnable states for Republican presidential nominees.