ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Rudy repeats justices call

Posted: Friday, November 16, 2007 5:15 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ's Matthew Berger
WASHINGTON -- Giuliani reaffirmed his commitment to appoint strict constructionist judges Friday before the Federalist Society, and called on the Senate to change its advise and consent rules to require a vote on judicial nominations.
 
“We almost got to the point where the ‘advise and consent’ clause was being reinterpreted as a way to bring back the Spanish Inquisition,” he said, invoking the recent example of Miguel Estrada, who was denied a vote. “The Senate should have the courage to vote yes or no, but not to hide behind those nominations.”
 
Giuliani used the speech to extol his areas of agreement with the conservative jurists, but stayed clear from some of the issues in which they differ. There was no mention of abortion rights, gay marriage or any other of the hot-button topics that divide Giuliani from the Republican base.

Instead, he stuck to areas like cutting taxes and decreasing the size of government, as well as the red meat topic of activist judges. Giuliani referenced MSNBC host Chris Matthews, noting that all of the political analysts on “The Chris Matthews Show” agreed that Giuliani would keep his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges.
 
“It’s the first time I agree with a group of Washington reporters,” he said. “We believe in the rule of law, not the rule of judges.”
 
He said as president he would be “seeking to find judges who understand the very, very important concept that judges exist to interpret the law, not invent the law.”
 
Giuliani brought home the argument by attacking Hillary Clinton, calling her a “recent convert” to federalism because she said drivers licenses for illegal immigrants should be decided on a state-by-state basis.
 
“This is the only time in her career that she’s decided anything should be decided on a state-by-state basis,” he said. “You know what, she picked the absolutely wrong one,” he said to applause, noting that border and immigration issues are preserved for the federal government.
 
Giuliani was the only Republican presidential candidate to accept the society’s invitation to speak, organizers said. He was introduced by Ted Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general, and referenced conservative stalwarts like Estrada and Robert Bork. Also Friday, the campaign added new names to its Justice Advisory Committee. It even kept the name of Michael Mukasey on the list, before sending out a second release noting that Mukasey had left the committee to become the U.S. attorney general.
 
As if showcasing Giuliani’s argument, the White House Friday announced seven new judicial nominations and highlighted confirmation delays. It notes 11 circuit court nominees now awaiting Senate confirmation, including six that are nominated for positions considered “judicial emergencies.”
 
Giuliani spoke largely from a script for the 40-minute address, and took no questions. As part of his remarks, Giuliani paid homage to the American constitutional system throughout the speech.
 
“It was this nation that saved the world from the two great tyrannies of the 20th Century, Nazism and communism. It’s this country that is going to save civilization from Islamic terrorism,” he said, receiving his loudest and most sustained applause.
 
Giuliani’s normal stump speech often targets tort reform and the need to end frivolous lawsuits. Those points didn’t make it into his Federalist Society speech. Even his favorite anecdotes about the multi-million dollar pants lawsuit in Washington didn’t make an appearance. Perhaps he thought lawyers wouldn’t be warm to tort reform proposals.
 
And there was a noticeable buzz in the air when Giuliani mistakenly referred to the Ten Commandments as “ten amendments,” before correcting himself. The Freudian slip came at the same time as questions are being raised about whether Giuliani, a Catholic, would receive communion because of his position on abortion and multiple marriages.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I dislike the term 'strict constructionalist.'  In practice, it ironically has nothing to do with strictly judging the text as it is written and no further.  In reality, it is merely a synonym for 'strict conservative,' which offers no guarantees to our precious Constitution.
It was loosely mentioned here.  Why do Republicans support federalism in the U.S. but not in Iraq?  To the contrary, Iraq is a divided country, and the last time I checked we are all Americans, Mississippi and Maine included.  National problems require national solutions, federalism is a cop-out.
How many judicial appointments did the GOP put secret holds on?  Almost 300 as I recall.  Whining about not rubberstamping appointees is nonsense.
"...could you use a good lawyer?" "I could use a good Judge." -Conversation between Mattie Ross(Kim Darby) and 'Lucky' Ned Pepper(Robert Duvall), in 'True Grit'.
rudy is going from americas mayoral failure to running for prez and congress...does anyone really take this clown seriously?
Strict constructionist is nothing but code for judges that agree with someone has for a  position. Do these people really want to count Indians as 3/5s of a person? The Constitution recognizes slavery as well. Other than a few red neck does anyone honestly think we should reinstitute slavery? Corporations aren't persons under the Constitution yet because of a footnote in a Supreme Court ruling, a corporation is treated as if it were a person. Do the "strict constructionist really want judges to intrepret the Constitution exactly as written? I seriously doubt it. Seems to me Rudy is just selling snake oil to the ignorant morons he knows will buy it.
Nice move Rudy.  He's my man!!
Keep talking Rudy what else will you try to change in your utopia.
What our Founders wanted ALWAYS was a balance of power.
One of the most obvious ways Bush has stolen that balance of power is through the Judiciary Branch.

The advice and ***CONSENT*** of the Senate puts the Constitutional oversight of the Judiciary in the hands of the SENATE.  The Senate vote BB (Before Bush) was 67%.
Bush demanded that the GOP Senate make it only 51%.

If every vote for a judge was still 67 votes, the Executive branch would not be controlling the Judical Branch of our government.

Call your Senators today and ask that, in an effort to restore balance in our government, they restore the 67 vote rule. No matter which party you are from, our Judicial Branch would be taken out of the hands of our Executive Branch and put back into the hands of a super majority (almost never just one Party).

If this rule doesn't get changed under Bush, then it won't change under Clinton either.
Bottom line...
Do you want advice and CONSENT for our Judiciary to come from the majority in the Senate body, or do you want the President to pick his own Judicial Branch and continue to destroy the balance of power?

Call your Senators (both R and D) and demand that they restore the balance of power that our Forefathers gave to We the People through our representative government.
No matter who the Republicans pick to try and get crossover votes, whether it be Huckabee (economic positions with a mainstream appeal), Paul (foreign policy positions with a mainstream appeal), or Giuliani (social positions with a mainstream appeal), the fact is ALL of them have vowed to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would likely overturn Roe vs. Wade within the next President's term.  It is a reasonable question to ask whether - putting aside all the security, fiscal, and corruption crises Republicans are going to be held accountable for - a candidate with such intentions could even win a general election.  
//start
I dislike the term 'strict constructionalist.'  In practice, it ironically has nothing to do with strictly judging the text as it is written and no further.  In reality, it is merely a synonym for 'strict conservative,' which offers no guarantees to our precious Constitution.
//end

Being a 'strict constructionalist' has its not so good moments, but it's better then the liberals solution of just making crap up as we go along.
So a pro-choice republican will appoint strict constructionist judges and doesn't see that as a contradiction?  Just how does he think those judges in the mold of Scalia will handle abortion cases when they reach their benches?  Rudy is one hypocritical fool.
The mosr ACTIVIST judges on the present Supreme Court are the so-called Conservative ones...Check their Records!!
Rudy has no business talking about the consitution, when it's obvious he doesn't care about it.

In my opinion, Rudy is hands down the most mis-leading and evil candidate on the republican side.

There's that shady business of his law firm lobbying for Fox News. He's an authoritarian, he cares nothing for anybodies' civil liberties. His own family can't even stand behind him. He also wants to expand and further the already disasterous war that's been going on without end for years.

On top of that and worst of all-- He uses the memory of a tragedy to further his political career.

Rudy is so far removed from good taste and the consitution it offends me.
Rudy is just another Republican hypocritacal fool!
Indeed, we need both a democratic super-majority in Congress and a democratic POTUS to prevent more neocon appointments to the Supreme Court  - now we have 5 judges that vote in lock-step to force conservative agenda, operating in much the same fashion as the remainder of the GOP in Congress.  

There is no diversity of thought, word, or deed whatsoever in today's GOP - and in effect with the recent GOP minority you have obstructionist rather that constructionist government - that is, blocking all legislative efforts to enact moderate law initiatives that would in any way impact extant neocon foreign or domestic policy.  

Since recent changes in the balance of Congress, Bush has maintained his neocon agenda through the power of the veto - ably assisted by his single-minded obstructionist GOP allies in Congress.  

There is nothing that Guiliani or any other GOP candidate would (or could) do to change the ultra-conservative trends we've seen in judicial appointments since Bush.  Once in the Whitehouse Guiliani's so-called moderate tendencies on various social issues would disappear like smoke.  Guililani is totally indebted politically to ultra-conservative factions and the more so if elected.        
Where was Rudy when we needed him? As I recall, not many judges made it past the republicans during the last six yrats of the clinton Administaration. Some 350 never got a vote during that time for all levels of appointments because some old coot from the South did not like their philosophy. Never heard of Rudy at that time!
Rudy, no family values, Guiliani claims to support a woman's right to choose.  At the same time, he plans to nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas who will vote to overturn Roe.  A little contradiction there, Rudy.  
Hillary clinton, rudy guiliani and Mcain should all move to Iraq and run Bush's country for him !!!
It's for darn sure they have forgotten about America and her needs !!!!!


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=471311

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google