Posted by
on Friday, March 02, 2007 2:53:29 PM
Last time I'm going to touch on this issue because, frankly, I'd like us to move onto other news that Rudy. Ben Smith is at it again over at the Politico, taking swipes at Giuliani over his judicial picks. This time he drew a bead on Bill Simon's talk with Captain Ed at the CPAC event, and Ted Olsen's interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday. Mr. Smith is, of course, referring to the Mayor's committee that sent him the judges he had to pick from, and posits that Rudy could have done more to show he stood for the sort of judges that he is claiming he would appoint to the United States Supreme Court.While I get the point, I think Mr. Smith fails to see the overall point, or at least the differences in jurists. Rudy appointed judges to the criminal courts, and subsequent lower courts to deal with crime and social issues. (As I stated yesterday, this includes familial problems, divorces, etc.) There is an overwhelming difference between these courts, and the US federal court system. The New York courts don't deal with issues of Constitutional jurisprudence. They deal with state laws and statutes. One of Rudy's "Democrat" judges isn't going to address freedom of speech issues.
Add to the mix Ted Olsen, which Rudy stated in his interview with Hugh Hewitt that he'd be talking to Mr. Olsen above anybody else when it comes to constructionist jurists. I trust Ted Olsen's judicial philosophy, and I trust that Rudy won't be bucking his recommendations. But trust is something that's earned. It's not given freely. Let's just say that I trust Rudy not to make a Souter mistake, a purposeful Ginsburg choice, or a Miers snafu.
Publius II