The Occasional Observer

Rudy's been running around for a while now saying things like, I helped Reagan pick his nominees, I'd nominate justices like Alito & Roberts, etc. His supporters seem to think these statements, in and of themselves, justify SoCons believing that Rudy will be good for pro-life, pro-family, pro-second amendment, and pro-marriage voters. And this, in spite of the fact that Rudy is admittedly pro-choice, supported gun control in NY, and is pro-civil unions.

A great thread over at race42008.com throws a few more shadows of doubt on Rudy's viability as a conservative. Apparently his track record as mayor includes nominating scores of judges who are anything but conservatives--nominees that Democrats and even extremist groups like NARAL supported. Check it out.

I added this to the thread, after another poster tried to equate Rudy to Mitt by saying, in essence, if Mitt can change his mind, than so can Rudy:

Please show me the statement where Rudy claims to have had a “change of heart” on judges. I think Rudy thinks the moderates and liberals he’s already appointed fit within his conception of a “strict constructionist,” since I’ve never seen a statement from his saying “back then I thought a certain type of judge was acceptable, whereas now I have a higher standard.” Instead, look at LJ’s quote above. Rudy makes it sounds like appointing strict constructionists is such an obvious, slam-dunk move, it sounds like he’d been doing it all along: “I don’t understand how you cannot be for strict constructionist judges”

Apparently the judges that Rudy appointed, such as the ones being applauded by NARAL, fit within Rudy’s idea of a “strict constructionist.” The reality for any conservative who cares passionately about the judiciary, is that the Bork, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter (!), Thomas, Roberts and Alito nominations were all attempts (of various kinds) to put conservatives on the bench, and it was anything but a slam-dunk. Each and every time, the Dems pulled out every rhetorical trick and dirty personal attack in the book to smear the nominee and the President who nominated him. (Do these ring a bell: Bob Bork’s America, Anita Hill, “you supported arresting 12 year old girls for eating french fries,” Concerned Alumni of Princeton, etc, etc, etc). Successfully seating these nominees requires an enormous effort, the willingness to spend political capital, and savvy maneuvering. Picking the right nominee is also a matter of enormous complexity, requiring a dedicated effort to consider the nominee’s written decisions, personal history, jurisprudence, ability to parry SJC
inquisition, appearance on camera, ability to sway influential senators, etc.

The point is this: there’s a lot more to reinventing the judiciary than saying “I like judges like Alito and Roberts.” Show me how that connects to your political aims, your core convictions, and where you think the country needs to go. Then I’ll have some basis for believing you’ll prioritize the fight. Rudy hasn’t even come close to meeting that standard, and frankly, to this point, the evidence lines up against him. Does he still have time to make believers of those who care about the Court? Sure, and this week’s CPAC confrence would be a sensible time and place to start.

Another great site, MyManMitt, gives a lot more detail on Rudy's poor judicial nominations here.