You can listen to Rudy’s interview on Hugh Hewitt’s show here, or read the transcript here.
The money quotes from the interview are regarding Rudy and judges:
HH: You know, you picked up Ted Olson’s endorsement, taking a digression. That’s a big deal. Will he be playing a role in your campaign?
RG: He sure will. I mean, Ted Olson is someone I havefirst of all, he’s a very, very good friend. I mean, he’s someonehe’s been my friend since those days, and we’ve been through a lot together. Yes, Ted will play a very big role in my campaign, and I mean, if Ted weren’t my very, very good friend, he’d be somebody I’d still want to rely on as probably one of the biggest experts on the Constitution in this country, and the person who probably has argued before the Supreme Court more than anybody I know.
HH: Will he help you pick judges if you are the president, and you’re making Supreme Court selections?
RG: He’d be one of the first people that I’d turn to for advice and help and assistance. And I was involved in the Reagan administration in the judge selection process, although that was run by the deputy attorney general, and I was involved in the U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. But I watched all of it, and I appointed 100 judges myself. And it’s something I thought of, when I was the Mayor, as one of the most important things that I did.
HH: Did you have a litmus test for those hundred?
RG: No. No, not a litmus test on a single issue, a philosophical test, meaning what I wanted to know was what’s their view of how you interpret the Constitution and laws? Are theydo the Constitution and laws exist as the thing from which you have to discern the meaning and the intent? Or are you going to superimpose your own social views? And I want, I like the first kind of judge, who is a judge who looks to the meaning of the Constitution, doesn’t try to create it.
HH: A pro-life voter looking at you, knowing that you’re pro-choice, but not concerned that presidents really matter so much in that, except as far as judges are concerned, what do you tell them about who you’re going to be putting on the federal bench?
RG: I’m going to say I’d put people likeI mean, the best way to do it is to just say I would, I could just have easily have appointed Sam Alito or Chief Justice Roberts as President Bush did, in fact. I’d have been pretty proud of myself if I had been smart enough to make that choice if I were the president.
HH: Do you expect justices like Roberts and Alito to come out of a Giuliani administration?
RG: I hope. I mean, that would be my goal. I mean, they’re sort of a very high standard, and so is Justices Scalia and Thomas. That would be the kind of judges I would look for, both in terms of their background and their integrity, but also the intellectual honesty with which they interpret the law.
(All emphasis mine)
So what kind of SC appointments can we expect from President Giuliani? Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito.
To be honest, Rudy is exactly the kind of man that I want to be making SC appointments. Rudy believes in the kind of judge “who looks to the meaning of the Constitution” and doesn’t “superimpose” their own social views, even though this may lead to an outcome that he may personally disagree with. It is Rudy’s intellectual honesty and commitment to core conservative values that draws Pro-Lifer’s like myself to him.
Like I have said before, I would rather have a candidate honestly disclose those points on which there may be a disagreement with the Republican base (and clearly state the remedy) than to simply tell us all what we want to hear.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“do the Constitution and laws exist as the thing from which you have to discern the meaning and the intent? Or are you going to superimpose your own social views? And I want, I like the first kind of judge, who is a judge who looks to the meaning of the Constitution, doesn’t try to create it.”
If the pro-life movement wants forward their agenda, taking a strict constructionist approach is the way to do it. Rudy has the best chance to get elected and implement this approach.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Hewitt, usually a tough interviewer, ie cross-examiner (he’s a lawyer) tosses softballs to Rudy.
more later
February 24th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Gamecock,
Sounds like Hewitt is moving from Team Mitt to Team Rudy.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
“Sounds like Hewitt is moving from Team Mitt to Team Rudy.”
Nah… But Hugh has always been open to Rudy. In fact, most people thought Hugh was on the Rudy bandwagon since he wrote an extremely flattering article about Rudy and ’08 one month after the 2004 election. See here.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Money quote from that article:
February 24th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Kavon
The most troubling aspects of Rudy’s interview on H&C were:
(a) his use of the language of the left
(b) his refusal to give his opinion on Roe despite the many opinions he has given on other cases both old and recent
(c)his prediction that the court would not overturn Roe, but rather would chip away at Roe and would follow some precedent.
“C” was especially troubling in the context of trust. First off, Rudy take up too much time playing tv talk show analyst. He wants the job of picking judges. He seeks to assure us that he will pick certain judges we like, and then predicts they will do what something less than we expect, which is why we liked tham in the first place.
Rudy needs to let us know if thinks the issue of abrotion should be left to the states as the constitution provided and as Scalia and Thomas have ruled.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I have listened to almost every Hewitt interview for the last 3 years. I have heard him cross examine gop reps in congress and senators like they had killed his mama. But he simply did not ask the followups like he usually does.
Gamecock needs to cross examine Rudy, and I guarantee you that I would either assure his nomination by making his position clear thru brilliant questions, or cause him to withdraw from the race!
February 24th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
tm
Hewitt is getting into Team GOP mode. Not wanting to harm anyone running due to hillaryfear. Rudy is ripe for tough questioning on Roe, judges, and the wall.
I don’t suffer from Hillary fear. We have the strong defense in time of war vote. All the candidates are strong on the war.
We need to really get serious on judges. Bush has been the best judge picker in history. We can’t afford judges that are going to follow liberal precedent and permanently deprive us of Liberty, ie self government.
But Hugh has a book out about Romney, so he is not yet on tean Rudy.
and btw, I love Rudy on many issues and think he would be great, but
can we do better?
February 24th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
“can we do better?”
Nope,
I don’t think there is any other candidate that can win next year.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
TM
One thing I am looking forward to is when Rudy faces a hostile liberal press. I love the way he treats fools.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Gamecock,
As much as I like George W, he is not a great communicator. The MSM has successfully turned Iraq into Vietnam.
Rudy gives me a great level of confidence. I believe Rudy will be able to rebuild support for the Iraq War and the GOP in 08.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
This is a wonderful interview. This pro-life, gut-toting, “theocrat” is just about ready to become a full-blown backer of a pro-choice social moderate from the NE. Why? Because I have not heard a more cogent defense of constitutional originalism in a presidential candidate since RWR.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
here’s a video I can guarantee you Rudy would prefer you didn’t see. Not exactly presidential:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/02/video-rudy-giuliani-does-not-want-you.html
February 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
“constitutional originalism”
Good point Gary,
This is key to getting judges confirmed.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
TM
good points
I agree
February 24th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
With all due respect people, as I read Rudy’s words there, I see a pol who knows exactly what code words he needs to say in order to win over the audience he is addressing.
Rudy is pro choice.
He calls himself a strict constructionist.
Therefore, obviously, he doesnt see those two positions as contradictory.
Nor do I, for that matter, but it seems that the socons rest a lot of their position on the assumption that they are.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Thanks Gamecock,
Tano,
Rudy is already winning over the majority of the socons.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Tano
If Rudy is trying to just say what this social con (also, btw most soc cons, esp in the south are also war hawks first) wants to hear, he is failing miserably, as my writings show. When he slipped up and put that “precedent” comment in at the tail end of an answer to hannity, he said exactly what I didn’t want to hear.
Social conservatives do not want judges to outlaw abortion from the bench. They want Roe overturrned so that the issue can be decided by the people governing themselves in states.
But Rudy hasn’t said enough to ensure me he would appoint such judges.
He also needs to address the wall.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Rudy is doing well with social conservatives now, but he won’t be once it becomes known that he won the NARAL award just a few years ago.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Marksal,
Rudy is not running as a pro-life candidate. He is running as a strict constructionist, which will result in appointing functionally pro-life judges. This will not satisfy everyone, but I believe most Socons will acknowledge that this is the best way to advance their agenda.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Marksal
It is VERY early, and yes, Rudy has a lot to answer for, and I predict that rudy will change his rhetoric and make some promises. Otherwise, he can’t win the nomination. This will be quite simple and I would bet he does it and wins, unless Romney catches fire.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
As an outsider to these things, I sense a lot of confusion on how to address the abortion issue.
I think Gamecock, although a socon himself, is mistaken when he seems to speak for socons in general.
I think most of them would be thrilled to see abortion outlawed from the bench.
Those who push the line that a fertilized egg is life, that must therefore be protected – else it be murder, are basically arguing that the existing laws against murder should apply. This is something that the SC could easily do – simply by ruling that yes, “life” beings at conception, therefore abortion is murder and should be banned everywhere that murder is illegal (i.e. everywhere).
Obviously Rudy doesnt believe that life begins at conception, because I would presume that he opposes murder.
Similarly, Mitt wants exceptions in the case of incest and rape – therefore he must not believe that life begins at conception, because it would be absurd to allow the “murder” of someone simply because his/her father was a rapist.
So I think both of these guys are opposed to what I sense is the core socon position.
I get the impression that Republicans understand that such a hardline position would probalbly be very tough to sell in a general election, and so some, the more politically-savvy, like Gamecock, focus more on the federalism argument – despite the fact that that argument seems to depend on a rejection of the “life begins at conception” position (how can you allow the states to legalize murder?).
February 24th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Tano
First, I was pro-choice for years and a thinking human being for even longer, and never needed the inside the womb pics to know that once an egg-sperm unite on the wall, that a developing human being exists and that to interrupt its development at any stage thereafter is indefensible barring a threat to the life of the mother.
Rudy knows its a human life just as anyone else with a mind does.
I was pro choice from age 16-38 for one reason. I wanted to be able to have resposibility free sex.
This and the desire ofthe parents of young girls to get rid of inconveniences and of women to not have their ability to buy a Ferari, is why we all get the glazed over looks and lie to each other about when life begins.
We know.
And having argued this issue evey way from Tuesday in college and since, I can tell you that there is
NO WAY
to define a time from conception and attachment to the wall, thru the head coming out of the vagina, to justify abortion that would not also justify killing humans outside the womb.
So don’t even try please my brother.
We know pal.
I am one that abhors intellectual dishonesty, and so several yars ago I stopped pretending and became pro life.
I have a lot less respect for Gamecock when he was pro choice, and others now. I understand the human weakness and so I pray, because nothing shows our barbarity and decadence as apeople more than legal abortion.
more on the politics and what else you said that I agree with and some I don’t late
HINT: Pre-Roe, social consevatives did not try to get judges to make abortion illegal
HINT 2: States that barred abortion pre-Roe sanctioned the Abortionists not the women usually
HINT 3: Homicide has always had differing degrees in state law
February 24th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Tano
A non-activist SCOTUS could not outlaw abortion. It could not re-define federal laws against homocide.
Tano, listen to the lawyer. Murder is defined at the state level, not the federal level. The SCOTUS does not have the power to force states to define abortion as murder.
Now, to the exceptions and your “how can you allow the states to legalize murder?”.
Even within the law of murder, their are degrees, and self defense is a complete defense. Some argue this for rape and incest.
If GC were writing his state law, or a federal amendment, life of the mother (self defense) would be the only exception.
As for me allowing other exceptions, well
I am a benevolent King?
February 24th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Gamecock,
I disagree strongly with you regarding the matter of “life”. You may be a lawyer, but I am a biologist, so I guess we have different perspectives right off the bat. But you certainly have convinced me that you are reistant to reasoned argument, so, yes, I will not even try.
But basically, you seem to make my point for me. You consider abortion murder.
So Rudy and Mitt both are murder-enablers. (I sense you fully appreciate how abortion in case of rape is still murder, by your definition).
I do wonder why you make allusions to the various levels of murder. If abortion is murder, and would obviously be the murder of the most innocent and the most vulnerable – then what possible reason would anyone find for not prosecuting such murder at the most serious level? And why on earth not charge, convict, and of course, execute the mother? She would obviously be the essential perpetrator – the crime would not be commtited without her active and purposeful participation.
How can you hold the positions that you do, and vote for anyone who doesnt hold the pure socon position?
February 24th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Saying that he will appoint pro-life judges is all well and good, but why not vote for someone who is actually pro-life if abortion is such a concern?
February 24th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Tano
I basically made my points, not your mind made up biological one that goes unstated.
Murder is a subset of homocide. Murder requires MALICE aforethought. Manslaughter less than even though this is usually reserved for killings in the heat of passion. I have never accepted that drunks in a bar that kill should be given this slack. Such is life. The State can define all manner of homocide and punish who it wishes and how.
We have the pre-Roe world to look at, and it does not conform to the NARAL and Rudy cartoon.
You wonder a lot about how I can do so and so, yet you don’t answer the obvious questions raised by my post.
Eyes still galzed over in denial so the American ideal of getting rid of developing inconveinences can be prolonged?
You sir are the one with questions to answer. To yourself. You don’t avoid them by declaring yourself a biologist.
Its hard, I know. It took me many years.
Didn’t want to wear a condom of take a chance of losing the cadillac due to diaper bills…
Let’s be honest. We’re all men here aren’t we?
I’m losing intellectual respect quickly
February 24th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Tano
I take back that last sentence. I should not impose my intellectual standards of the obvious on others.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Tano, your notion that socons would cheer abortion being outlawed from the bench is ignorant. We want the issue decided by the people in the various states in a constitutional manner.
Which is exactly why many socons, including this one, would be perfectly happy with a President Giuliani. Indeed, RG just might be the most intellectually honest candidate in a generation: personally pro-choice but knows his public policy preference shouldn’t be dictated from the bench.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Tano
I gave you a reasoned argument and you respond by declaring yourself a biologist and refusing to respond with a reasoned argument.
I quite understand. Such is the dilema when faced with an obvious truth that condemns one to their very soul.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Gamecock,
What reasoned argument? You state your opinion, thats all. And claim that all thinking people must realize what you realize. That is not a reasoned argument. It is, in fact, simply stating a falsehood. Because unless you want to claim that 70% of Americans are not thinking, then it seems quite clear that lots of thinking people think differently than you do.
You seem to think it is all about you. You were young and irresponsible, so you supported the legalization of abortion, so as to have some protection from your own irresponsibility. And now that you are responsible, then abortion can be seen as a bad thing.
Its not about you. The question is simple. Should the government have the power to prevent or to punish a woman for terminating a pregnancy that she does not wish to bear.
Does a woman get to decide her own fate, or does the government?
I know your answer. I am just asking you to recognize what the question is. It is not whether you or I want some backup for a failure to use condoms.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Gary,
Could you clarify for me? If abortion is murder, then how can it be a principled position to allow the states to legalize it?
If the fetus should be seen as a person under the law – protected by rights (to life), then how can this be put in the hands of a legislature? Since when do legislatures have the power to deny basic rights?
They dont have such power. If 99% of the legislature, and the governor all agree that you should not be allowed to express your opinion, then they cannot so act. You have guarantees, under the constitution. Andt hose guarantees will be protected by the courts.
You catch my drift here? If the principled stand is that abortion is murder, then the issue MUST be seen as a judicial issue. For it can only be a question of whether existing rights (to life) extend to the fetus or not.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Tano
Can a woman “decide her own fate” by killing a 2 year old too? Or do we stop at the partial birth killings with the head still in the womb as feet dangle towards Earth and the scissors jammed up the baby’s skull?