Posted by
on Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:10:04 PM
The "granddaddy" of election blogs has a most interesting post up regarding Rudy Giuliani. Mike DeVine, AKA "Gamecock," @ Race 4 2008 calls Rudy out:
While you’re at it, Lawyer Giuliani, also tell us your opinion of Roe vs. Wade without mentioning Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.
Today is one of the greatest days in constitutional law history in the affirmation of inalienable rights. One of the greatest judges of all time, Laurence Silberman penned the 2-1 majority opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in overturning gun laws in the District of Columbia that have been characterized as among the most restrictive in the nation.
The laws you happily enforced in NYC as mayor have also been so characterized.
I saw your interview last month on Hannity & Colmes when you left the script and lapsed into a reference to “respect for precedent” when responding to a question about Roe. I haven’t forgotten what less savvy and/or in the tank for you ”journalists” and commentators missed the significance of or buried to protect you.
They can’t protect you from Gamecock defending the conservative Henhouse and the US Constitution.
You are a lawyer, sir. You want to be the man that chooses lawyers to serve as judges that interpret the word “is” and the rest of the words in the U.S. Constitution.
Rather than hiding behind the robes of judges your former boss Reagan and your post-9/11 hero Bush and his dad picked, tell us your opinion of Roe and the monumental gun rights case handed down by the D.C Court of Appeals today.
Please.
We don’t care to hear you play objective TV commentator. You want us to hire you to make decisions. So tell us sir what you think of these cases.
You have told us what you think of many other cases that restricted the rights of police. On those cases you didn’t lapse into any deference to the court or Alito worship.
The DC case declares that the 2nd Amendment recognizes a fundamental INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms to protect one’s home, even if its in a big city like New York City. The case makes no distinction of such rights in big cities vs. non-big cities like you have.
What is your opinion of the Silberman opinion?
I have never owned a gun, but I, and the rest of WE THE PEOPLE own this country, and if you want to be hired, please completely answer all questions on the job application.
Indeed, WE also wish to know where he stands on those particular issues, and as yet, Mr. Giuliani has only been asked by a couple of pundits regarding his stances on Roe and gun rights. While we can understand Mr. Devine's frustration with Mr. Giuliani's past, we can also state that as Americans who are supporting his candidacy, he has answered them, thus far, to our satisfaction. Additionally, Mr. Giuliani stated the following in an recent interview with Hugh Hewitt:
HH: Will he [Ted Olsen] help you pick judges if you are the president, and you’re making Supreme Court selections?
RG: He’d be one of the first people that I’d turn to for advice and help and assistance. And I was involved in the Reagan administration in the judge selection process, although that was run by the deputy attorney general, and I was involved in the U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. But I watched all of it, and I appointed 100 judges myself. And it’s something I thought of, when I was the Mayor, as one of the most important things that I did.
I am curious; what was Mr. DeVine's opinion regarding Harriet Miers nomination under President George W. Bush? There is nothing in the Charlotte Observers archives coming up about such a thing. And I only ask because if he had a problem with Miers' nomination, I can see it on credential arguments. But Ms. Miers helped President Bush vet his nominees. If Mr. Giuliani does win the nomination, and subsequently wins the presidency, what would he think of Mr. Olsen helping then President Giuliani with his nominees. It is clear from Mr. Olsen's credentials as a lawyer that he would puch originalist jurists for Mr. Giuliani. If he is as trusted as Mr. Giuliani states in that interview, then Mr. DeVine should have no antsy feelings about who Mr. Giuliani chooses.
Mr. Giuliani has made it clear that he believes in the rule of law, especially in the realm of Roe jurisprudence (or lack thereof). But he has also stated, for the record, that he believes Roe is bad law, and that the subject should be turned over to the States. And for Mr. DeVine, we remind him that that is where it was prior to the USSC decision in 1973. Mr. Giuliani has stated he believes in the States' right to determine laws and govern their people. We can side with him on that (and that comes from a pair of amateur court watchers who are incensed every time the States are trumped by the USSC and the federal courts).
Yes, we would like Mr. Giuliani to answer questions about both Roe and Parker v. District of Columbia. But what will that accomplish, truly? Both issues remain int he purview of the courts. As president he can overturn or trump neither of them. His judicial appiontments are what matters, and he has been clear as to the sorts of jurists he would choose. We would urge detractors like Mr. DeVine to calm down, and actually do some fact-finding on it. Ask him. Prompt those in the media to ask those questions. Let us find our answers. Though I doubt his detractors will appreciate his answers; most especially if he answers their concerns directly, and identifies originalists that currently sit ont he federal bench. For our part, we would not be surprised to hear a name like Luttig, Garza, Brown, or Estrada tossed out by Mr. Giuliani.
Would that then satisfy his detractors? Probably not, but it is a step int he right direction for someone like Mr. Giuliani given that he is riding a high wave of public support.
Marcie