Giulliani's Judicial Intentions

[Andreus]

see original story here

July 18, 2007
Giuliani vows to appoint strict constructionist judges

Giuliani campaigned in Iowa Wednesday.
COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa (CNN) — Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani pledged to appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the federal bench during a campaign visit Wednesday to this city located in the southwest corner of the Hawkeye State.
“I would appoint judges like Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito … Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas,” Giuliani said.
He added, “We have to appoint strict constructionist judges because judges interpret the constitution. They should not be allowed to make it up… They will not get it into their heads that they’re really legislators and that they can go around changing things.”
A strict constructionist judge tries to determine the original meaning of the Constitution based on nothing more than the words provided in the document itself. Judges of this philosophy often attempt to decipher the founding fathers’ original intent.
When asked if he would consider landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade when making appointments to the Supreme Court, Giuliani said, “Roe against wade is not a litmus test. No particular case is a litmus test.”

– CNN Iowa Producer Chris Welch​

 

[RandomAccess]

Sad thing is, Andreus, none of our friends on the right will have any problem with this. Neocons only consider judges good when the judges vote their way. Otherwise, the judges are "activists."

 

[springboksfan]

This guy is sounding more like a fruitloop every day.

 

[Andreus]

its some scary stuff and really its all about the last ellections

I was alarmed by the fact that Bush was going to have a shot at replacing supreme court justices and many told me that he would appoint moderate justices like oconnor....

well he didnt ....

now even Roe V Wade is vulnerable

racial equity in the work place and in schools has been compromised and this Bush court is rewriting the social fabric of america in Dubyas image

This shows that Guillianni, the most "moderate" of the republicans will do just as much damage to america as Bush has done

to say that these people are not legislating from the bench is ridiculous and ludicrous.

these people need to get out of the white house for 8 to 12 years so that the democrats can restore the suporeme court and align it back to the real desires of the american people.

 

[ComNavFdgPk]

Of course, it doesn't really make any difference who a republican president appoints to the bench...............................................................



because they feel that the executive branch can over-rule the sentence passed by the judge in any court!

 

[iman]

Of course it's a phony issue because the "strict constructionists" are as activist as any judges, but how does he justify appointing judges he does not agree with?

 

[Kulindahr]

Sad thing is, Andreus, none of our friends on the right will have any problem with this. Neocons only consider judges good when the judges vote their way. Otherwise, the judges are "activists."

Actually, the Right would be in a frenzy if the Supremes interpreted the Constitution for what it said -- for starters, most of the "USA PATRIOT Act" would be whisked away.

BTW, the article's definition of "constructionist" is in error.

 

[Kulindahr]

these people need to get out of the white house for 8 to 12 years so that the democrats can restore the suporeme court and align it back to the real desires of the american people.

So you, too, believe that the Constitution is to be set aside at will.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to represent the "real desires of the american people", it's supposed to represent the Constitution. Representing the desires of the people is Congress' job; the Supremes are supposed to make sure that those desires are cut short whenever they encroach on the supreme law of the land. "The desires of the people" is why gays are treated as second-class citizens, is why there had to be a Civil Rights Movement, is why a religious viewpoint has been enshrined in federal law in the form of all the preferential treatment of a certain kind of freedom of association, i.e. marriage... If the Supremes had been enforcing the Constitution all along, we wouldn't have those problems.

Appointing constructionist judges would be a wonderful thing -- trouble is, he doesn't really mean it, just as Bush didn't.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course it's a phony issue because the "strict constructionists" are as activist as any judges, but how does he justify appointing judges he does not agree with?

Presidents aren't supposed to appoint judges they agree with, they're supposed to appoint judges who will adhere to the strict meaning of the Constitution. That's what makes the Court part of the system of checks and balances.

 

[Kulindahr]

Technically, the Constitution does not state on what basis he is to appoint judges.

True.
But it sort of stands to reason. It's part of the excessive optimism of the Founders, believing that the job of the Supremes was so obvious they didn't have to spell it out -- just like they thought that those who rose through the rough and tumble of things to high office would be of good moral character....

 

[chance1]

so Giuliani's strict constructionist stance is a problem?

the alternative is to write new laws? and that's good?

He said Roe vs. Wade is not a litmus test - that's good

not sure why his position here is such a problem for u

 

[Andreus]

so Giuliani's strict constructionist stance is a problem?

the alternative is to write new laws? and that's good?

He said Roe vs. Wade is not a litmus test - that's good

not sure why his position here is such a problem for u

chance... either you are unaware of the four justices voting historys or you are playing games with us

either way its not a pretty picture

these guys are not what Guilliani says they are. Oconnor was a conservative jurist.

these guys were the people that she kept in check due to their radical natures.

now they are running willy nilly on american civil liberties

you really need to read up on them

 

[chance1]

chance... either you are unaware of the four justices voting historys or you are playing games with us

either way its not a pretty picture

these guys are not what Guilliani says they are. Oconnor was a conservative jurist.

these guys were the people that she kept in check due to their radical natures.

now they are running willy nilly on american civil liberties

you really need to read up on them

do I really need to read up on them?

thanks andreus - for being u - for proving my point about u each and every post - u think ur funny - ur not - ur just obnoxious - but u r consistent - and that is something

back to the judges - there is clearly balance on the supreme court

John Roberts was an excellent choice and had much bipartisan support - 78 votes yea in the Senate - hmmmm - perhaps u should read up on that? nah I won't write that

Breyer, Ginsburg, Stephens, and Souter - are liberal
Thomas, Scalia, Alito - are conservative
Kennedy is a swing guy

so all in all, the court is neutral

the picture is just fine

except if u want to impose YOUR will on the american people

 

[Andreus]

i'm done with you chance

this is the last time i will ever trust you and your eratic behavior

dont address me directly anymore and i will do the same for you

there is no going back to this for me again with you

its just not the way i want to have fun here

 

[Andreus]

lets have a redirect here guys

how about we return to the topic without the squabble and potshots

 

[NW007]

Not sure of the intent of your thread, other than you don't like the type of judges that Giulliani does.

It is the President's right to appoint the judges, because they are only going to serve if approved by the Senate. Even if they are approved thee is no guarantee that they will always rule the same way in the future as they had in the past. Justice O'Conner ended up being more moderate and centrist than many thought she would when originally appointed.

 

[Andreus]

Not sure of the intent of your thread, other than you don't like the type of judges that Giulliani does.

It is the President's right to appoint the judges, because they are only going to serve if approved by the Senate. Even if they are approved thee is no guarantee that they will always rule the same way in the future as they had in the past. Justice O'Conner ended up being more moderate and centrist than many thought she would when originally appointed.

its an article from CNN

it has no point but to enlighten the voters on the type of person they are voting for

its not about a pissing match over who has what rights

its about understanding what our votes for whom will accomplish and how they will affect us as individual citizens

 

[chance1]

i'm done with you chance

this is the last time i will ever trust you and your eratic behavior

dont address me directly anymore and i will do the same for you

there is no going back to this for me again with you

its just not the way i want to have fun here

dude

the only flip flopper here is u - who pretends to be something he is not

and I guess u have no answer for my points about the court

as stated before u really should get over urself

cause ur not all that

 

[NW007]

I would agree that it is important for voters to be informed, especially as to the type of judges an elected official will appoint. The judges that an elected official appoint probably are one of the most important and lasting influences on society that a politician can have.

 

[Andreus]

I would agree that it is important for voters to be informed, especially as to the type of judges an elected official will appoint. The judges that an elected official appoint probably are one of the most important and lasting influences on society that a politician can have.

most definitely

i cant stress that enough

its one of the most lasting impacts that a president can have on the nation.

supreme court justices serve at THEIR convenience once they are made a part of the court

its important to consider what every candidate will do with his appointments

thanks for the post, budd