It’s not often that a campaign will comment on potential SC nominees. However Ted Olson, who will be heading Rudy’s legal advisory team, stated that Janice Rogers Brown is the kind of Justice Giuliani would approve of in an interview with ABC News‘ Jan Crawford:
Crawford: Would Rudy Giuliani nominate someone like Janice Rogers Brown a staunch conservative, beloved by many on the Right and reviled by those on the Left?
Olson: “Yes,” he said. “I think he’d be impressed with her whole life story, her talent, her education–the way she pulled herself up from a very modest beginning, the inspiration her life would give to people on top of her talent.”
Crawford: But would he be willing to wage the fight a Brown nomination would provoke?
Olson: “Absolutely,” Olson said. “Rudy has never walked away from a fight.”
As someone who believes that SC nominations are the most crucial prize in all of American politics, Team Rudy’s endorsement of JRB is most welcomed by me.
The Hon. Janice Rogers Brown sits atop my personal “dream list” of potential SC nominations along with Frank Easterbrook, Michael “The Luttigator” Luttig, and William Pryor.
In all of the 2008 GOP field, Rudy and his spokesmen have been the most explicit in the type of judge he admires (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) as well as what specific judges he would consider nominating (Janice Rogers Brown).
Thanks to Confirm Them for the tip.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
As a Rudy skeptic if Rudy himself (as opposed to Ted Olsen) says that he would specifically nominate Janice Brown if a vacancy occurred I’d vote for him.
I doubt he’ll get that specific. He’s probably going to stick to his “strict constructionist” talking point because it’s vague enough to avoid criticism.
If Rudy actually did name names I think it would go a long way to winning over a lot of skeptical social conservatives.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
The social conservative outreach continues.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Cool, she’s a libertarian.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I wouldn’t necessarily call a statement, made off the cuff by a surrogate of a campaign (not even its official spokesperson), to be a campaign endorsement of the judge. After all, Jay Sekulow, a Romney backer, is a prominent advocate of Michael McConnell. But even assuming this is an official statement of Team Rudy- that Janice Rogers Brown would be judge of note in his opinion, I don’t think this goes to the central question behind our fear of Rudy on judges. First of all, the statement made above says nothing about Rudy admiring Brown for her judicial philosophy. In fact, it sounds quite a bit like the statement Rudy made last year about Ginsburg, that many rightly decried as not representing an endorsement of her philosophy. Olson’s saying Brown has a compelling life story, is talented, and well-qualified. I doubt you’d find very many people on the left to disagree with those statements. Secondly, Rudy is an experienced lawyer. In a way, I’d rather have someone with know legal background, but a strong conservative bent, appointing justices. Because Rudy’s not going to simply defer to his handlers on judges, as Bush has largely done. He’s going to pick someone that he likes, and someone who’s judicial philosophy he agrees with. Does he agree with Brown’s judicial philosophy? Well, he says he’s a strict constructionist. That’s nice. Nevermind that strict constructionist could reasonably apply to as many as seven justices on the current Supreme Court. What else do we know? We know that, this man who “never backs down from a fight”, expended little energy in trying to remake the New York City judiciary, suggesting that it wasn’t a priority (for either ideological reasons, or sheer indifference). We also know that he agrees that Roe is “good law”, hardly the sign of someone’s who’s likely to have a judicial philosphy consistent with Brown or others of her ilk. And we know, from writings of other lawyers that served with him in the Reagan administration, and in NYC (I’m thinking of, I think it was a National Review article of about a week ago), that at most Giuliani is a conservative judicial activist in thought. Could Rudy appoint Brown? Sure. Will he? I’ve seen very little evidence to suggest he will. The fact is, it’s going to be incredibly difficult to thread the needle on the next judicial nomination. I’m hearing rumors that Ginsburg is sick, which necessitates a woman. You’d be surprised how few women the conservative movement has, of the appropriate age, qualified for the Supreme Court. There’s Brown of course. There’s Edith Jones, Edith Brown Clement, Priscilla Owen, Karen Williams, Maureen Mahoney, and Diane Sykes. Jones, Brown, Owen, and Williams would require cataclysmic confirmation battles (and Owen and Williams are likely lightweights anyway). Clement’s been vouched for by Bork, but has a somewhat unclear record (also perhaps a bit of a lightweight). So of the possibilities that could be considered even somewhat conservative, we’re left with Brown, Jones, Mahoney, and Sykes as non-lightweight possibilities. Perhaps the most tempting in this group, for the non-judicial conservative, is Mahoney. She’s extremely talented and has been dubbed the female John Roberts. She’s confirmable as well. But she’s also by far the most likely to be not sincerely conservative. After this group, we’re left with a string of “moderates” in Callahan and Sotomayor like judges. So realistically, there’s 3 “acceptable” picks for the next nominee, and its difficult to imagine Rudy picking any of them when there’s a handful of other nominees, who’ll provoke less fight, and can plausibly be called strict-constructionist. And out of the remaining possibilities, there’s only one, (Mahoney), who wouldn’t be a complete disaster or embarrassment. With such a thin margin of error, I have to agree with others: its just not reasonable to trust the person who has an actual stake (vis-a-vis his political preferences) in picking someone other then the most conservative justices.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Question: How come everybody questions Giuliani’s sincerity when he says he’ll appoint strict constructionists, but everybody takes Romney at his word. Rudy has been the one constantly advocating constitutionalist justices (and the one with solid legal experience)
(Note: not implying anything about the previous two comments – don’t know their allegiances in this campign – just speaking generally)
March 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
[...] post by Kavon W. Nikrad and software by Elliott [...]
March 5th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
“I wouldn’t necessarily call a statement, made off the cuff by a surrogate of a campaign (not even its official spokesperson)”
Ted Olson is the head of Giuliani’s legal advisory team. He is an official member of the campaign.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I wouldn’t say Rudy’s been consistently advocating “constitutionalist judges”. He has in this campaign to be sure. But he’s previously called Roe “good law”, appointed 8 times as many Democrats as Republicans to city judicial courts (which he had the capacity, through statutory law, to wield considerable influence over), and heartily endorsed first amendment violations such as McCain-Feingold. Furthermore, he has a personal stake in not appointing the most conservative strict constructionists, due to his position on abortion. Romney, on the other hand, assuming you believe he’s truly pro-life (which I do), has a personal stake in seeing Roe overturned and has repeatedly called for such. And his record of judicial appointments, under much less favorable circumstances, is superior.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Palin for VP!,
Summing it up for myself here…I question Giuliani’s sincerity on the judicial appointments rhetoric because his record shows a huge preference for nominating liberals, he believes Roe is “good law” (not exactly the hallmark of strict constructionism), and he’s lied with regards to certain aspects of his pro-abortion record. There’s quite a few more details in a previous R4’08 thread:
http://race42008.com/2007/03/03/does-rudy-support-the-hyde-amendment/#comments
March 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
“…appointed 8 times as many Democrats as Republicans to city judicial courts”
Meme alert!!! Meme alert!!! Cue meme siren!!!
March 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
“Meme alert!!! Meme alert!!! Cue meme siren!!!”
LOL. Indeed.
Again, when you’re mayor of a municipality appointing Judge Judy to decide just who is responsible for someone’s dinged up car door, the last thing on your mind is how the judge will interpret the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution.
I’m just saying…
March 5th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
As I have said, being able to appoint 45% is not “welding considerable power” when the 55% appointed by liberal democrats can block a conservative
March 5th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
It’s just so tiring… The same arguments over and over again… The Romney guys will be bring up the BS about Rudy appointing Judge Harry Stone to settle littering tickets (those of you who grew up in the 80′s should get that); the Rudy guys can bring up that Romney said that “Roe is law of the land and we should sustain and support it”; the McCain guys will say “my guy has been pro-life for 24 years”; the Romney and Rudy guys fire back “except for when he’s surrounded by liberal newspaper editors…”; and around and around it goes for the next 11 months…
Does anyone have an opinion of JRB? How about that a campaign official has taken the unusual step of commenting on a specific potential nominee to the SC? Because those two things would be an example of a conversation that hasn’t been talked about ad nauseum.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Pickett,
First, do you have evidence that the 10 out of 19 members of the judiciary board were appointed by liberal democrats? I have not seen anything to indicate this one way or another…please share.
Second, I haven’t seen any evidence that the 10 members not appointed by Rudy could block the 9 members who were appointed by Rudy. Do you know this to be true?
Finally, Rudy had the ability to reject the nominee options handed to him and asking for new ones. I haven’t heard of a single show-down Rudy had with the committee over this.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
“Second, I haven’t seen any evidence that the 10 members not appointed by Rudy could block the 9 members who were appointed by Rudy. Do you know this to be true?”
How about every single thing that was written on the story last week, including like three articles on this very site?
March 5th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Kavon, it’s possible I’m blind, but I didn’t see anything specifically saying how the committee of 19 chooses it’s nominees. If you have info on whether a simple majority or otherwise is needed, would you be so kind to share?
March 5th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I don’t like the idea of seemingly promising to promote specific people within or to the federal judiciary if elected, or even implying such. That is rather crass, and I hope Mayor Giuliani can find other means of convincing voters that he is conservative. I think referencing certain jurists as the kind a candidate respects and would search for is fine and helpful, but implying that certain folks would be on judicial short-lists ahead of time is something that just isn’t done in presidential campaigns, and I am sorry to see the Giuliani campaign cross this line. Parenthetically, this tactic also contradicts a Giuliani staple – underpromise and overdeliver; and my guess is that the Mayor will tamp down this kind of rhetoric from his surrogates and staff in the future. This is the problem that can occur when campaign advisors with substantive credentials but little political experience try to stump for the candidate. Mr. Olson ought to, I think, stick to privately advising the Giuliani campaign on legal matters and issues rather than attempting to become a public political face for them.
I also agree with those who say that the only folks with credibility in referencing judicial appointments are the candidates themselves. Ted Olson is a pillar in the legal community, but the choice and responsiblity would be Giuliani’s, if elected, regardless of how much Olson would be relied on. Olson can talk about Giuliani judicial appointments until he is blue in the face, but the Mayor is the only one whose views on such matters are going to sway undecided and wavering voters (which Kavon and DaveG are not) who have never heard of Ted Olson. In addition, be reminded that President George W. Bush told us during presidential campaigns that jurists like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would be the kind he would look for – and when it came to the United States Supreme Court the actual record was mixed, with John Roberts and Harriet Miers getting the nod until the latter was forced out based on the outrage of conservatives in favor of Samuel Alito. So even these promises and theoretical constructs have limitations.
The judicial angle is a creative one for the Giuliani campaign to pursue in order to shore up his credentials among social conservatives, but what Olson has done here, I think, goes too far in politicizing the federal judiciary and isn’t even good enough as a tactic to bolster the Mayor as a conservative. Conservatives are going to want to know the kind of specific legislation the Mayor will support and sign as president in the areas of abortion, firearms, gay rights, stem cell research, and traditional marriage – not just gain a glimpse as to the kind of judges the Mayor would nominate to rule on such issues from the bench.
What I would love to hear Mayor Giuliani say is that both sides of the political spectrum should stop politicizing the federal judiciary. Doing such and naming, as he has already done (in Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito), judges who represent the kind of jurists he favors and would appoint should be enough. It is time to move on to other campaign tactics, I think, if you are the Giuliani campaign. This one has already been pushed too far.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
“Kavon, it’s possible I’m blind, but I didn’t see anything specifically saying how the committee of 19 chooses it’s nominees”
No Murph… You just continue to harp on this settled point for the sake of keeping the argument going.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Kavon, the remaining 10 officials are appointed by the surrounding law schools, the Chief Justice of the Appelate court, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (such as they are). They aren’t going to be inherently and unremittingly liberals. To be sure most will, but to suggest that all 10 are liberal to such an extent that none of them would cross over for more of the 1/9th of the justices Rudy appointed, is a rather bold and, I think, unsupportable claim. Anyway, on to Janice Rogers Brown, since you’re quite right, its important that we discuss these things. I think she’s a fine jurist, and a sincere originalist. I do worry though, that she might be prone to conservative style judicial activism, based on her comments on the Lochner decisions (suggesting it seemed that the due process clause gave substantive effect to broad economic liberties). She denied this in her appellate hearings, but I don’t see any other way to read her non-judicial writings on the subject. I’m also not a huge fan of nominating anyone over 55 (she’d be 60). But all in all, there’s likely no one as conservative, or as sincere of an originalist in the judiciary (though Mike McConnell is spectacular). She’d be an excellent appointment. But because of age considerations, I’m slightly more partial to Diane Sykes (she’s 48). But if I KNEW Rudy would appoint Brown, I’d have absolutely no problem with him on judges (though I’m pretty skeptical that she’d be confirmed).
March 5th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
“To be sure most will, but to suggest that all 10 are liberal to such an extent that none of them would cross over for more of the 1/9th of the justices Rudy appointed, is a rather bold and, I think, unsupportable claim.”
Matt,
Once again you prove your ignorance on this issue. Rudy did not appoint anyone… The candidates apply to the board themselves, they are voted on, and three are approved from which Rudy has to choose one. Rudy has no control over who the board does and does not consider.
Please reread the Smith article one more time.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
No Kavon, it’s not settled. That’s why I asked. Pickett, and then you, spoke as if you knew the details better than I. If I’m mistaken about the conditions under which Rudy was operating, I’d like to know that I’m wrong as soon as possible.
If you believe that Rudy’s background on judicial appointments doesn’t matter towards his future appointments, that’s something that can be made into a persuasive argument on its own. But when Rudy supporters contend that he had no practical control over his judicial appointments, forgive me if I try to dig into the specifics.
Kavon: …three are approved from which Rudy has to choose one.
Case in point. Rudy actually doesn’t HAVE to choose one. He can send them all back and ask for three new options.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
“Case in point. Rudy actually doesn’t HAVE to choose one. He can send them all back and ask for three new options.”
Which is definitely something to expend energy on when looking for someone to adjudicate parking tickets. Yep, I care about where that guy stands on the “life issue.”
March 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
DaveG, perfect point in arguing that parking tickets aren’t relevant to constitutional policy. It would be interesting to know exactly what those 75 judicial seats were relevant to…it can’t all be parking tickets, but frankly I don’t know the full extent of it.
As I said, just trying to get the facts straight.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
So you’re saying that Rudy should have crippled the NYC’s court system, which would have killed his war on crime, to get some Republican judges on what amounts to traffic and other low level courts? Thank goodness he cared more about the 2,600 people that were getting murdered each year.
Do you Romney guys really want to bring up judges again? Because Mitt is much more vulnerable on his record of judicial appointments that Rudy is. I can reprint the articles on the frontpage if you really want to get into it. Or perhaps we can get little intellectual honesty?
Even though Romney is not our guy, I thought the other writers here were extremely fair and intellectually honest on that issue.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Kavon, I’m referring to the BOARD itself, not the judicial applicants. The board, which sent Rudy his judicial applicants, was composed 19 members. Rudy appointed 9 of them. The remaining 10 were, as I said, picked by the Chief Justice of the Appellate Court, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (such as they are), and the surrounding law schools. Rudy could have appointed 9 conservative Republicans to that board, by statute, and no one could have done a thing about it. This would have obviously resulted in more conservative choices. He chose not to do this. I can’t say I entirely blame him. Politics is the art of the possible, and pissing off half the city over judicial nominees, might well make other things less possible. But the problem is, Rudy seemed to enjoy pissing people off on all sorts of other subjects. Making the judicial nominations more conservative obviously wasn’t important enough to him though to expend political capital. End of story. By contrast, Romney took alot of heat for making some procedural manuevers on judgeships (such as eliminating 5 members of the council which sends him his recommendations and appointing a Federalist Society member the leader of the council). But in the end I’m not entirely blaming Rudy for the 8 to 1 ratio, or his failure to make city judiciary more conservative. I’m simply contending that it’s ludicrous for Rudy or his supporters to suggest that conservative judicial appointments are a priority, by pointing to his record. He may well appoint a conservative, but there’s no evidence to support that idea and plenty to contradict it.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Mitt is not more vulnerable on the issue of the judicary. As we’ve stated numerous times. You’re welcome to reprint the articles. We’ll see that, 1.) Virtually all of Romney’s appointments came through a batch of recommnedations by a 21 member council (which he eliminated 5 members from in an attempt to change the direction of the recommendations), 2) He appointed 25% Republicans and another 20-25% Independents. A 2 to 1 ratio, and 3). Romney had to get his appointments past a popularly elected 9 seat panel (8 of whom were Democrats). The two systems don’t even elicit a fair comparison. Romney’s is clearly more unfavorable (or at least Rudy’s is potentially more favorable, that potential resting largely in his hands) and Romney clearly has a better record. But I agree, this is getting tiresome.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Kavon
This was encouraging to hear out of Rudy. I trust Ted Olson and was glad to hear he likes JRB.
However, your statement,
Rudy and his spokesmen have been the most explicit in the type of judge he admires (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) as well as what specific judges he would consider nominating (Janice Rogers Brown)
is stretching the truth. I’ve seen statements from all the candidates that they like judges like Alito and Roberts.
More importantly, Rudy didn’t say he would consider nominating JRB. Rudy’s spokesman (Olson) didn’t say Rudy would consider nominating JRB. Olson did say that Rudy would consider nominating her (he might say the same about Cass Sunstein), and that “I think he’d be impressed with her.”
I think? Basically, Teddy O is saying that he’s speculating that Rudy would like JRB, if Rudy knew her life story.
Like I said, a step in the right direction. And if Rudy said, “I’d nominate JRB” it would definitely serve him well.
In the meantime, I appreciate all the ink this is getting. If Rudy is able to close the deal as a front-runner, people who like judges such as those Kavon mentioned (JRB/Easterbrook/Luttig/Pryor) better get as many promises and names out of him as they can.
While Rudy’s a man of word, he is not pro-life and is making promises he feels he has to. I’m sure he’ll honor them, but we better get as many promises out him as we can, while his hands are still out. Once he’s crossed off his to-do’s as President, you can bet nominating SoCon’s to the bench will be way down on his list of priorities.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Kavon,
I never said anything about crippling the NYC court system…I was correcting a factual error on Rudy’s authority over judicial panel nominees. And as I said, the argument that Rudy’s past track record is no indicator of his future track record can be persuasive. You seem a tad bristly over what amounts to my procedural questions about the NYC judicial appointments. Are you seriously calling this a lack of intellectual honesty?
March 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Sorry, that second sentence in paragraph 5 should say:
Rudy’s spokesman (Olson) didn’t say Rudy would nominate JRB.
If one of the editors could change that for me, I’d be most grateful.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Calm down, guys. The day when Patrick Ruffini gives you a huge plug on Hugh Hewitt’s blog is not the day for this sort of rhetoric.
I, for one, agree with Republius. This is NOT the time to be naming specific names. ‘Crass’ is the exact word I would use. It is a word I would use if Romney did it. He would immediately diminish in my eyes, if he did.
Also, this is a statement by one of Giuliani’s guys, not Giuliani himself. Let’s wait and see what happens, shall we?
March 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Can we all say that Romney is officially dead now that Rudy and conservatives are warming up to each other? Mitt’s vote buying at CPAc should mean that we can stick a fork in him.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=85
Absolutely…
March 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Here is my last comment on this post. Please compare my analysis of Mitt’s judicial record with that of those who have commented on Rudy’s record here:
How does that hold up to our Romneyite commenters here?
March 5th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I could not have any more respect for the legal analysis and points of view of Ted Olson and the economic analysis and points of view of Larry Kudlow. These guys are two of my all time favorite public people. But it is comical bordering on the embarrassing when they try to pass themselves off as political consultants. Just because they have worked for and counseled presidents in their substantive specialties does not make them political professionals.
As a final and mostly rhetorical thought on the matter, how many conservative lawyers and jurists were available in the city of New York and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for Mayor Giuliani and Goveror Romney, respectively, to choose from? I have no doubt that both would nominate more conservative jurists as president than they did in their previous elective offices. Both have applauded the nominations of Roberts and Alito. I doubt that there is really much here to distinguish the GOP candidates in 2008. It is likely a dead end. And just as well because, again, the federal judiciary has already been overly politicized.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
No ones claiming that Romney has a stellar record appointing justices. Merely that its better then Giuliani’s, under a more constraining system (in the sense that he has absolutely no say over the panel that confirms his nominees). For the record, Romney’s six appointments to the state Appellate Court were, from what I’ve heard, considerably more conservative.
And no one is claiming that Giuliani has done a terribly poor job or had unilateral control, or anything approaching, over the judicial selection process. I specifically said “I’m not entirely blaming Rudy for the 8 to 1 ratio, or his failure to make city judiciary more conservative”. It was a constraining system and no one expects Rudy’s nominees to be Scalia’s either. But he had SOME reasonable latitude in choosing the board which sent him his nominees. And I think its quite difficult to conclude that he made use of that latitude in a way that someone would who made a conservative judiciary a priority. That’s it. That’s the extent of my criticism and analysis of Rudy’s selections.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I think I will stay out of this one and let you guys battle it out. I wouldn’t want to intimidate anyone. :-:
March 5th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
PS That was a joke
March 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
You think that, Chris, if it gives you comfort.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
So, is Rudy a flip-flopper? He seems to be becoming conservative as fast as Romney is…
March 5th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Maybe Rudy likes JRB because she, like he, considers herself a strict constructionist, but also is pro-gun c control. (at least in a Constitutional sense).
March 5th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Yeah, JRB has some somewhat quixotic constitutional views for an originalist. But I’m not entirely sure her reading of the 2nd amendment isn’t the correct one.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Rudy didn’t say he would nominate JRB. Olson didn’t volunteer the consideration, either. The news broadcaster brought her up. What did you expect Olson to say, that Rudy would NOT consider a strong, black, female, conservative judge? That would have been insane. The news broadcaster could have asked top legal advisers to any one of the GOP candidates, and each one would have given an answer very similar to Olson’s.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Rudy will say anything. How long is it going to take for people find out that he can’t be trusted?
March 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Anyone who thinks Rudy will appoint a conservative justice is just credulous. The fact that he (and not even him, Ted Olson) mentions Janice Rogers Brown doesn’t mean anything she’ll never get confirmed. (Even with a GOP senate.) The only way a conservative can get on the bench nowadays is by being a stealth nominee, e.g. Roberts and to a lesser extent Alito (he was more upfront with his philosophy, hence his lower confirmation margin). Unless the GOP takes back the senate, which is not likely because of the 2008 map, not patent conservative nominee will get confirmed.
I would trust McCain and Rudy to appoint a good, conservative “stealth” nominee. I would never trust Rudy in terms of a stealth nomination. The person might look good, but my guess is that the person would be more like a Kennedy than a Scalia. Basically if Rudy gets the nomination he’ll appoint Kennedys relatively pro-business, but socially liberal. If Rudy does get the nomination, then Roe will probably be upheld for a second time, because a person who accepted a lifetime achieve award from NARAL WILL NOT expend political capital on a Janice Rogers Brown or any other patent conservative nominee. (Luttig won’t get confirmed. Pryor won’t confirmed, he barely got on the appeals court. A McConnell might, but barely, and that’s only because he’s so well respected.) A person who believes in Rudy’s mollifying statements is so naïve that it’s laughable.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Marksal,
You are probably correct. Thank-you, media.