Giuliani defines ‘strict constructionist’

February 15, 2007

Rudy Giuliani has always been unswervingly pro-choice, even accepting an award from NARAL, which is why it’s been noticeably odd to see him try to finesse the issue lately, suggesting to Republican primary voters that it may not matter that he’s pro-choice, because he’d appoint conservative judges.

The subject came up last night, during an interview with CNN’s Larry King.

KING: Let’s move to some things domestic. You’ve had some quotes lately that — that seem contradictory. I know you’re pro-choice, you’ve always been pro-choice.

GIULIANI: I am.

KING: Yet you’ll say you’ll appoint judges who are strict constructionists. If that’s the case, they’re going to vote to overturn “Roe v. Wade,” which you don’t want.

GIULIANI: I don’t know that. You don’t know that.

KING: Well, what is strict constructionist?

GIULIANI: Well, OK, there are a lot of ways to explain that. I mean (UNINTELLIGIBLE)…

The “unintelligible” isn’t mine; it’s in the official CNN transcript. I didn’t see the interview, and can’t speak to what Giuliani might have been saying, but the New York Times reported it this way: “When Mr. King asked him to define what a strict constructionist is, Mr. Giuliani said, ‘There are a lot of ways to explain that,’ and did not elaborate.”

Giuliani’s message, therefore, seems to be, “I support strict constructionists for the federal bench, just don’t ask me to explain what that means.”

No wonder he and Bush get along so well.

so – he’s going to appoint judges who don’t believe that corporations have the same Constitutional rights as persons and citizens?

  • That was stupid of him. Given his authoritarian impulses, he should have just said: “Having been a federal prosecutor, I believe very strongly in the rule law and strictly applying constitutional principles, such as those I dealt with when prosecuting the mob in New York. I have taken a close look at the approach taken by the judges appointed by President Bush and would select nominees with similar judicial approaches. I will not use a litmus test of whether a judge supports this issue or that issue, but will look at their overall judicial philosophy.” It would allow him, all at once, to avoid directly answering the abortion question, to send a clear message about the type of judges he would select, and reinforce his law enforcement credentials.

  • [After Milhouse runs away, Chief Wiggum releases dogs to track him down.]

    Chief Wiggum: Okay, we can all stop worrying now, these dogs never fail.

    Kirk: But… will they just find Milhouse, or will they find him and kill him?

    Chief Wiggum: Well, they’ll…when they find him, they’ll… um, um… [mumbles incoherently]

    Kirk: Uh, excuse me, you didn’t answer me, you just trailed off.

    Chief Wiggum: Yeah… yeah, I did kind of trail off, there, didn’t I?

  • I support strict constructionism, which clearly means %^$#* ^@!# )(*&^ (burp) +)+&^$. My own special “take” on that is ^%$*#$ @#!(& ^%&$& and, of course, (*&^%)*( ^%&. God bless Amerika. Gott mit uns. Achtung!

  • I actually think that the Republicans will not even field a candidate for President next time. They just don’t have anybody.

  • “There are a lot of ways to explain that,” but I won’t pick any of them, because it might force me to reveal that I’m full of it. (Maybe if I stop now, Larry will go on to something else. )

    That’s presidential timber, all right!

  • You missed what Rudy said after that:

    “And I just think it’s very, very important that a judge have a judicial philosophy that says I am going to try to figure out what the framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote this or what the people who amended it meant when they put it in, not what I’d like it to mean, not what I feel it means.”

    Looks like a pretty conventional interpretation of strict constructionism to me.

    Also, you overlooked how Rudy went on to describe how the Supreme Court has never actually overruled some of their other liberal precedents–such as the exclusionary rule–but chipped away at it through the years to make it more “rational”. And Rudy was suggesting (but not endorsing) that the Court could do that with Roe v. Wade.

    Nothing to see here, folks. Rudy endorsed Scalia for Chief Justice last year. Need we say more?

  • Everyone knows that a strict constructionist is someone who agrees with hardcore conservatism through and through. The term has nothing to do with what the Constitution says or how it’s interpreted. It’s not that hard, Rudy.

  • Damn, norbizness – you hit exactly the Simpsons quote that came to my mind when I read Giuliani’s reponse. It also reminds me of:

    Marge: Homer, promise me you won’t buy Lisa a pony.

    Homer: Mm.

    Marge: Was that a yes or a no?

    Homer: Buh.

    Marge: Those aren’t words!

    Homer: Snuh.

  • So the best the Repubs can come up with for a presidential candidat is someone who resorts to speaking like Charlie Brown’s teacher when he’s stuck a tough spot? I can’t wait to see him use that tactic in debates.

  • This post seems more than a little disingenuous. As DJ pointed out, the transcript goes on to reflect that Giuliani then said “I would select judges who try to interpret the Constitution rather than invent it,” and that “I just think it’s very, very important that a judge have a judicial philosophy that says I am going to try to figure out what the framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote this or what the people who amended it meant when they put it in, not what I’d like it to mean, not what I feel it means.”

    That may not be a particularly rigorous analysis of the strict constructivist philosophy, but it seems quite adequate for a Larry King interview, and certainly doesn’t support the view that Giuliani was trying to dodge the question.

    • Comments are closed.