Legalities

Giuliani's main problem on judges is that he's said on record (and on a tape that's now playing on U-tube) that Roe is good constitutional law. No way around it, that's a red flag.

It's not enough for him to say he'll nominate strict constructionists, because that's such a vague and general term that it easily could be used to describe some judges that social conservatives would consider a disaster. Some people would say Kennedy and O'Connor are strict constructionists, except of course for the few situations in which they aren't. And it's those few situations that are the problems.

It's a great idea for Giuliani to name specific judges he would nominate to the Supreme Court. That will take the guess work out of it for the voters, as well as the wiggle room for him.

If Giuliani would come out and specifically say he would nominate Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court, he'd be doing himself a big favor in his effort to win social conservative votes. It would also be good if he'd put out a list (not closed ended) of five other names he would consider nominating from for other possible Supreme Court openings, including for example Priscilla Owen, Diane Sykes and Paul Clement (as the white male on the list, in case there's three openings for the next President to fill).

No more vague guess work. Your book has clearly shown where that all too often leads to. This time, bold specifics.

In NYC, Democrats outnumber Republicans in an 8-1 ratio, so his picks for criminal and family courts do not disturb me. His pool of candidates is very much skewed toward Democrats. Some NYC Democrat mainstays, like Pro-Life Assemblymen Denis J. Butler and Tony Seminario, are more conservative than milquetoast NYC Republicans anyway.

Rudy is best friends with Ted Olson and indicated that the Justices he would appoint would be in the Olson mold. That's good enough for me.

Saying that any of these justices are "solidly liberal" or "solidly conservative" is not only misleading, it is patently false. Such statements serve not to educate the citizenry, but rather, to polarize and create a non-existent "black-white" universe that more resembles Star Wars than real life.

One need only look at last week's decision on punitive damage awards in which the majority (which reversed an award against Phillip Morris for being excessive) was composed of Breyer, Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito -- whereas the dissent (whihc would have allowed the award) was made up of Ginsburg, Stevens, Scalia, and Thomas.

Such statements are nothing more than mindless propaganda and needless over-sensationalizing of what is a very complex, multi-faceted, and interesting issue.

For shame.

There are no conservative justices, and haven't been in recent memory. There were conservative activist judges at one time, as history shows, but this force has long since been absent from the judiciary. Instead, there are liberal activist judges on the one hand, and judges who attempt to follow and interpret the law, on the other. For example, Justice Marshall was well known for his light work habits as a justice - what work was there to do when he just voted the politically liberal line, and either voted with the side that took his stance, or told his law clerks to write something up coming out the way he wanted it to. Now, name one "conservative" justice in the last 50 years that has operated this way.

Sorry Rudy, I just dont believe you. I cant see you putting any anti-govt, pro-fedrilism, pro-property rights, or pro life justice on the court. And I cant support you. (which leaves me with the flip floping mormon and loose cannon Mccain...ouch)

Let's pray the court goes conservative to turn this evil Roe v Wade law around, or this nation is done. We are nearing that time when the highest judge will decide.

If he publicy endorses names Janice Rogers Brown as his first nominee there will be no question of conservative AND libertarian/objectivist support.

Sorry Ott, I don't care what Rudy says when he is trying to woo conservatives. The fact is that he is pro-abortion, pro-gay, and anti-gun. He is also a supporter of "big police" so to speak. He was the first to institute vehicle forfeiture for first time DUI, which basically amounts to a $25,000 fine for a petty misdemeanor. He likes government, and is not a conservative. If you like that, then Rudy is your man, but I hope he can't lie and convince anyone he is a small govt. libertarian!

I like Rudy and I think what he did to clean up New York(that was so totally outrageous)is a very good thing. He has shown exceptional leadership during the tragedy of 9/11, and compassion for ALL the families that lost their loved ones. How many did you see attending each funeral and doing whatever they could for the family members? Did Hillary do anything NEAR what Rudy did? NOT EVEN CLOSE, AND SHE IS THE N.Y. SENATOR. I may differ on certain things with Mr. G. on some issues, and no politician "is all things to all people", and that is okay with me, as long as his basic values are in line. I believe they are, and that he IS a good man. I further am very impressed with his choice of Ted Olson, whom I do believe to be an outstanding choice. Mr. Olson can offer very sound, and enlightening advice to him, and guide him through the neverending landmines that the likes of Liberals will be throwing in his path. They both will definitely have to be watching out for the "Clinton-Mud-Machine", that has already started to work on the smearing of Obama. Not that he is qualified, but that does not stop anyone in the way of Hillary's ambitions. I have stated on many blogs, that way back when(during the Senate run) it would have ONLY been Rudy to stop Hillary, and I believe it now. She has proven herself to be a phoney, pretending to be somewhere in the "middle", when in fact, she is very far left, and has always had a Socialist kind of thinking, and is riding on her husband's
coattails. Being the First Lady does not qualify her to automatically become Senator(which the N.Y. crowd seemed to pander to the uniqueness of a First Lady, First Running) and they got sucked in a second time-when all the while she kept denying that she would seek the Presidency. No truthfulness with Hillary, from day one, that's for sure. She lusts for the continuation of the Whitehouse, for the fame/power/money-I do NOT feel either of them ever felt it was for the good of the country and the American people. We don't need another Clinton there, with all the baggage they BOTH bring with them, and the public faces they put on for fooling people.
I would personally like the ticket of Rudy, with Newt as his V.P. and THAT is definitely a ticket that would be solid, with "strength, intelligence and compassion".

I'm socially conservative. As such, I simply do not trust Rudy G. to make the right Supreme Court nomination or nominationS. I will not vote for Rudy. That hideous Roe v Wade needs to be overturned. Abortion relegates us to little more than barnyard animals.
Although very unlikely, I'm hoping Bush is able to make another Supreme Court nomination over the next 18 months.
For JTG. Forget Gingrich for VP. Kerry and Newt suffer from the same disease. Both of them talk t-o-o much and nomally go around in circles when they do speak. Newt never saw a microphone he didn't like. No wonder Hastert *prudently* avoided the limelight.
Although much too early, I'm looking at Brownback, Hunter, Gilmore, perhaps Huckaby. I know, I know, I know, they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning their party's nomination let alone the general election.

Rudy supports the killing of unborn babies...

Rudy supports gay marriage (he even roomed with a couple of gay men between marriages)...

Rudy supports very strict gun control...

BTW...all Rudy did on 9/11 was his frigging job.

You have proven you know less about the law than even your scribblings as a so-called writer/columnist!!! You fail to admit that the majority of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES are political toadys/hacks from whichever political parties are in power!!! Specifically the last two JUSTICES ALITO and ROBERTS were both annointed by right-wing REPUBLICANS! While you stupidly neglect the appointment of RUTH BADER 'Greasy' GINSBURG - only after after ROSS PEROT agreed to run in the election assuring DICKHEAD CLINTON'S victory! Could 'Greasy' GINSBURG'S appointment be somehow tied to the fact that ROSS PEROT was represnted in his lawsuit involving billions - by yes you guessed it 'Greasy' GINSBURG's husband??? AND THIS WAS THE PAYOFF FROM DICKHEAD FOR ASSURING HIM THE ELECTION??? Sorry - tapes do exist of this momentary meeting and what was said and discussed!!! Such a noble profession - justice???

I think Mayor Giuliani would ease the minds of conservatives and greatly help himself if he named a number of judges, say (but not restricted to) 10, and guaranteed that his Supreme Court nominations would come from that group. The appointment of Ted Olson, a recognized conservative, was a plus and, if the named group was acceptable, this move would improve his standing with conservatives.

Guilani stands for personal responsibility, maximum freedom (though I disagree with his gun control laws), and reason.

There is no better man for the job.

I'll ask conservatives this:

If faced with Cinton vs Guiliani, who will you vote for? Or will you stay home and accept socialism as an American value?

Rudy is a no-nonsense type of guy regardless of where he falls on the Conservomometer. At least he's not fairy like John Edwards....teehee...Oops!? Did I say that or did Ann Coulter?

No way Guiliani, you are a democrat plain and simple, we will sit this one out just like we did 2006 if you are the mischoice

My late brother was Senior Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel. He spent over twenty years in the DOJ. His expertise was in International and Constitutional law and he held that position through many administrations. Among his accomplishments was representing the United States in the US vs. Iran case at the ICJ during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, where the US received a unanimous vote against Iran. When Ted Olson was appointed to his position as AAG of the Office, for reasons unknown [a political litmus test?] my brother was pressured out of his position by Olson. After leaving the Office of Legal Counsel he, briefly, worked as Liaison between DOJ and FEMA before, in disgust, taking early retirement.
Since my brother had prior direct bosses such as Scalia, with whom he had a close working relationship, he was extremely upset and mystified by Olson's hostility. Though my brother passed away in 2001 from complications from Lymphoma, I can't forget how an elite International Attorney was treated so badly.
I find it hard to believe Guiliani could even consider Ted Olson as an advisor - except to placate the right in the Republican Party.

I just read a related article by Noemie Emery in the Weekly Standard (linked at Realclearpolitics.com). She talks about Giuliani making a deal with the social conservatives where basically they ignore his social liberal ideas as long as he promises to basically ignore them too himself while he's in office and agrees to appoint strict constructionists judges to the Supreme Court, which the article says is what counts, from a practical standpoint.

This may work and again it may not. I don't see how it can even get close to working unless the deal is made over specific judges that he would name (eg. Brown, Owen, Sykes, Estrada, Luttig, McConnell, Paul Clement). The whole notion he is pushing now that all he has to say is that he will appoint strict constructionists won't do it. It's too vague, way too vague. Kennedy and O'Connor could be called strict constructionists in most instances. The statement leaves wiggle room for Giuliani (who is socially liberal, pro-abortion, very gay friendly and on record as saying Roe is good constitutional law) to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would be in the vein of Kennedy and O'Connor (who both pretty much share all of Giuliani's socially liberal views).

That's, of course, what the social conservatives are afraid of. So to get around this very real and understandable fear, Giuliani has to explicitly guarentee social conservatives that their worst fears won't come about . . . again. Or I don't see how this "deal" will work with enough social conservatives for him to win the election. (Some, sure, but not enough, definitely not enough.)

40-45% of the Republican voters in major elections call themselves social conservatives. In 2004, 80% of the social conservatives voted Republican. In 2006, that dropped to 71%. That mere 9% drop cost the Republicans control of the Senate (where three Republican seats were lost by roughly 1% of the vote). Not only must the Republicans make sure they don't lose any more of the social conservative vote, they have to get back what they lost in 2006. Or else, forget it in 2008 -- both for President and the senate.

So Giuliani should be willing to give the social conservatives what they want -- in specifics, not in vague generalities that can be twisted around into more Kennedys and O'Connors.

It sounds good for Ted Olson to say Giuliani would nominate Janice Rogers Brown and fight hard for her. No doubt about it that it sounds real good. But it will have to come directly from Giuliani for it to have real weight. (Because obviously Olson can't be held responsible for what Giuliani does, and on the flip side, Giuliani can't be held responsible for what Olson says.)

If Giuliani gives social conservatives an acceptable list of names (open ended, of course) from which he will select his nominees to the Supreme Court, it may just win him the Presidency.

This, from Janice Rogers Brown herself, is timely. There has been some speculation that she wouldn't even want to be nominated to the Supreme Court, because of all the flak she'd catch during the confirmation. Well, as to that, this is what she said a few days ago during a Q and A after a speech at Harding University.

From The Daily Citizen, which I assume is the school's newspaper:
"In response to an audience member’s requesting Brown to take any opportunity given her to be on the Supreme Court, Judge Brown said she thought the nomination unlikely.

“I don’t think that opportunity will happen,” Brown said. “But here’s the deal I will make with you: I will say yes to the question if you will pray for me.”"

Jan,

Loved your book. However, I think you miss the point of a blog. Blog entries do not need to be well edited; they are typically informal in nature. They do not need to be 774 words; a paragraph of two will suffice. They don't need to be breaking news. And here is the key: the lesser requirements for blogging allow for higher frequency of posts.

Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed the posts you have made. Exhaustive posts have their place, expectedly occurring with less frequency. But I am near removing Legalities from my list of daily visits, as timeliness of updates discourages such loyalty.