Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Umm...Rand, he made a statement very similar to the one you're suggeting. He was interviewed on Fox News about 2 weeks ago, where he said that (and I'm paraphrasing):

1) I personally don't like abortions, but I believe that women have a right to choose.

2) I believe in parental notification laws, as long as there is a judicial out (minor could go to a judge).

3) I believe that Partial Birth Abortion is wrong and should be banned as long as there is an exception for the life of the mother.

4) I would appoint justices of the same judicial philosophy & temperment (he actually used the words "strict constructionists") as Alito and Roberts. He said they were great picks, and he fully supports them. In fact he's worked with at least one of them before and counts that one as a friend.

5) And he suggested the Roe was poorly made law.

Little Green Footballs had a two part video of the interview up for a while. You can probably find it in Charles Johnson's archives.

Posted by kayawanee at February 23, 2007 02:35 PM

I did miss it. Partly because I keep hearing conservatives whining about his abortion views. I'm glad that great minds think alike, but he has to keep doing it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 02:39 PM

one could believe that abortion is an ongoing genocide, and think Roe great, if one is inclined to want judges to find imaginary rights in the document

The trimester framework in Roe was indeed a mess - it's gone now, of course, post-Casey - but it's simply false that the Roe judges 'found' an 'imaginary' right.

Look at the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

That means: state governments are not allowed to pass laws that severely infringe on individual freedom in the absence of some compelling state interest. I.e., state governments can't make pregnancy mandatory for no particular reason - and the fact that a numerical majority would simply like to is not sufficient.

Posted by Jason at February 23, 2007 04:23 PM

He better start getting his message out more as we only have the better part of two years till the election. I worry that we won't have the time to fully get all the candidates messages and interpret them for ourselves. Heh. I have a feeling we will be sick of this point from him in a year. After that we will only have to hear it for another year.

Posted by ajwpip at February 23, 2007 04:36 PM

Jason, your reading of the 14th rests on the presumptions that any State prohibition against any abortion amounts to a deprivation of liberty as well as the presumption that such deprivation would be without due process. The entire point of believing that federalism is the best way to handle the abortion issue is to precisely allow the State to determine propper due process that protects both the rights of the woman and the unborn. If your argument is that the unborn have no rights then I see that as not only a slippery slope to equally deny rights to others too weak or unable to speak for themselves but also in contravention to many existing laws that recognize such rights.

Rand, most of the Rudy/abortion whining I hear is not from conservatives themselves but, rather, from the MSM and puditocracy on behalf of anonymous and unnamed "conservatives."

Posted by submandave at February 23, 2007 04:42 PM

Well, Kaywanee, that is heartening. Before this, I had pretty much to hope that he would not get nominated, and then decide if it was worse for the nation and the R party to have Hilary or Guiliani.

Y'know open enemy vs. internal poison? Which would you rather have, a foe coming at you with a knife, or to swallow a cup of nasty chemicals? Me, I'd rather face a knife.

But, if Guiliani is serious, and shows it, then I could support such a stance. In fact, such a stance is almost identical to mine, at least in Step One. Roe needs to be overturned, if not for any other reason, then just to restore the dignity of the Supreme Court.

Posted by Tennwriter at February 23, 2007 04:55 PM

Well, Kaywanee, that is heartening. Before this, I had pretty much to hope that he would not get nominated, and then decide if it was worse for the nation and the R party to have Hilary or Guiliani.

Y'know open enemy vs. internal poison? Which would you rather have, a foe coming at you with a knife, or to swallow a cup of nasty chemicals? Me, I'd rather face a knife.

Posted by Tennwriter at February 23, 2007 04:55 PM

one has to divorce Supreme Court decisions from their real-world consequences. That is, the court doesn't rule on whether or not things are good ideas, or even moral. They (at least in theory) rule on whether or not they follow the law, and are in accordance with the Constitution. It is about process, not result.

in theory the Supreme Court, when it rules on the constitutionality of abortion, is just interpreting the law rather than making it.

But theory is not always descriptive of reality. You admit so much yourself, Rand, when you write "(at least in theory)."

We all "get" your theory. We just don't think it's an accurate description of what really goes on at the Supreme Court. When it comes to Supreme Court decisions on abortion, it's entirely up to a judge's personal preferences.

Further, you can't use a judge's decisions before they step up to the Supreme Court as evidence that judge will follow the law rather than make it up as he goes along. When they're in lower courts, they have to follow the Supreme Court. What lower court judges do is in line with your theory (applying the law as it is, where Roe is the law because SCOTUS says so). But once they get onto the Supreme Court, they're no longer obliged to follow Roe.

It goes from being "controlling" (lower court judges must follow SCOTUS decisions) to merely "persuasive," which means exactly like it sounds (judges are encouraged to follow it but don't have to). Judges with strong personal beliefs about abortion have already been persuaded by politics/social science/etc.

Posted by Daryl Herbert at February 23, 2007 05:05 PM

I've been following this closely, and Rudy's response to the question of whether he supports Roe v. Wade is pretty nuanced. He doesn't say, "It should be overturned." And he doesn't say "It was poorly reasoned" or "It was wrong". He's said something like this: "It'll be very interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with it. They could overrule it, or they could chip away at it to allow reasonable exceptions, much like the Court did with other Warren-era precedents like Miranda and the exclusionary rule. And," Rudy's said, "that's my sense of how the Court will deal with Roe." (See Rudy's interviews with Sean Hannity and Larry King--both on YouTube--for more.) Oh, and he's made clear that he doesn't believe in litmus tests for Supreme Court judges.

This is actually a pretty good, lawyerly assessment of what the Court could and may do. And, I think, it sounds like Rudy's endorsing that approach without saying it in so many words. At the very least, it's safe to say that Rudy has had several opportunities to publicly announce that Roe should be ditched. And he's demurred.

What does all this mean? Well, at least for now, Rudy doesn't want to say that Roe should go. He seems to think (erroneously) that being "pro-choice" necessarily means you need to endorse Roe. Hopefully, Ted Olson and other conservative legal supporters can persuade Rudy that you can be pro-choice and anti-Roe at the same time. And once Rudy gets that, I can't imagine that he'll continue to take the position that the constitutional right to abortion should be limited but not overturned. At least, he'd better not continue to take that position if he wants cultural and legal conservatives to support him.

Posted by DJ at February 23, 2007 05:11 PM

Okay y'all whats the difference between Rudy and any Democrat running on these issues, abortion, immigration, gun control, or global warming? Nothing. Just what does it take to call yourself conservative? When does the totality of his positions concern conservatives? What are your lines in the sand not to be crossed?

Posted by rockdalian at February 23, 2007 05:11 PM

At the moment it is to elect someone that is more likely to keep the country safe so that we can continue to have these arguements in the future. It would be idiotic to sit out the election because Rudy isnt conservative enough and have Hilary or Edwards walk into the oval office. You think Rudy isnt pure enough conservative? Try any of the Dems running.

Posted by buzz at February 23, 2007 05:48 PM

I am with you on your stance on abortion and whether it is important to me as a presidential issue. But you completely lost me on the issues that judges are not important. Some operate under your notion of process not outcome, they are good. Abortion has become such a polarizing issue in this country because the Roe v Wade decision was about outcome, not process. A new constitutional right was contrived to achieve an outcome.

When you have a justice, Kennedy, that says that international law should be considered when evaluating a case, there is a serious problem. There is no doubt that Congress, when considering laws, should look everywhere for successful solutions, including international law. US judges can only look at our laws and constitution and remain within their constitutional limits. That has not been the case for all judges. In fact, more liberal judges believe they should rewrite the constitution. (Yale hosted conference, The Constitution 2020)

Judges are important.

Posted by Rascal at February 23, 2007 05:52 PM

Rand talks about Imaginary rights, i guess wether
or not you believe in a right of privacy

Posted by anonymous at February 23, 2007 05:54 PM

Rockdalian,

The totality of his position includes a firm committment to victory over our enemies, rather than the various combinations of appeasement and surrender offered by most Democrats. The totality also includes strong support for a free market economy and a committment to protect the rights of law abiding citizens against criminals, terrorists, etc. These are the issues he's running on- the rest is just along for the ride.

Except for nominating judges, a president doesn't have anything to do with abortion. I haven't actually heard much about Guiliani's position on immigration or global warming, but I am more interested in pragmatism that ideology on these issues. Gun control is a bit of a concern, but he seems to favor a federalist approach, and I don't see any sign that he's going to promote more federal gun control.

Rudy has self-identified as a conservative campainged for other Republicans for years, so obviously he finds common ground between his positions and those of other conservatives. I can understand why he might not be your top pick for the nomination, but why question whether or not he's a real conservative? He's much more conservative than almost any prominent Democrat, even on the social issues.

Posted by JeanE at February 23, 2007 06:04 PM

But you completely lost me on the issues that judges are not important.

And you completely lost me when you reached that insane conclusion from what I wrote.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 06:18 PM

> At the moment it is to elect someone that is more likely to keep the country
> safe so that we can continue to have these arguements in the future. It
> would be idiotic to sit out the election because Rudy isnt conservative enough

That's just what happened last year.

If Republicans nominate another "compassionate conservative," a large part of their base will either stay home or vote Libertarian, just as they did in 2006. The Democratic base will still turn out in force, because to them a Bush or Guiliani is indistinguishable from a Newt Gingrich.

Pragmatists who call voters "idiotic" because they go not vote for "pragmatic" candidate are not being pragmatic. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at February 23, 2007 06:25 PM

Posted by Jason at February 23, 2007 04:23 PM

nice try...

The state interest in regulation of abortion in some form or fashion is preserving life.

The issue becomes when the rights of the mother are supseeded by the rights of the "fetus" to survive and be born.

Thats the thorny issue. The "right to privacy" is nto really imagined it is ingrained deeply in the Bill of Rights but it is not an unlimited right..almost no right is.

The question is when the "private rights" overrule the public one.

The 14th has little or nothing to do with it, except htat it is the door through which federal jurisdiction extends to the states.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 06:33 PM

When you try to pass Rudy as a conservative and use the war as your reason, are you not supposing that the Congress will also become conservative? If the Congress remains split where will Rudy get authority to fight the war. It seems to me that you hope the defeatist attitudes of the current Democrats will dissapate. Given the current atmosphere regarding the support for war, I do not forsee a change after the next election.

Posted by rockdalian at February 23, 2007 07:39 PM

Just as there are some space realities that might be in play by the next election, my guess is that Iraq or at least the course in Iraq will be settled one way or another by the time election rolls around.

If the surge doesnt work then there is probably no way that the Administration can resist some sort of "managing defeat".

If it works then peaceniks in the Dem party have taken their party over the cliff thelma and louise style.

it is much the same with NASA...if by 2009 some private contractor has made it to orbit in either ahuman spaceflight or human capable spaceflight way then NASA's return to the Moon is finished.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 07:47 PM

Rand,

Abortion is about life and death; it's rather sad that you're spending more time thinking about political ramifications for a candidate than considering the lives of those directly impacted by the whole process - complete with real results - 43 million dead. (Approximately 4,000 per day!)

You're saying Rudy can have it both ways - appearing pro-life and pro-death at the same time. To anyone who truly values the unborn as human beings that's disingenuous. To me it's worse than if he simply stated he was pro-abortion. I want to know where candidates plainly and clearly stand because the language on this issue has become so distorted and abused it's grown pathetic.

For a solid example, go read the SCOTUS oral argument transcripts for the Partial Birth Abortion ban. Try SCOTUS Gonzales v. Carhart #05-380.

"fetal demise" is another term for ripping the arms or legs off a later term child in a "non-intact D&X". Well medically it's actually safer to deliver the infant intact and then kill it outside the mother, because the calcified broken bones won't perforate her uterine wall and cause internal injuries. Nor would the abortionist, in his struggle to extract the baby or subsequent parts, rip out perhaps her small intestine.

Ah, but yes - you're focused on process, not the result. Perhaps you have much in common with Justice Ginsburg who doesn't really care whether fetal demise takes place inside the womb or outside, because after all, "...anything about infanticide, babies, all that is just beside the point because what this bans is a method of abortion. It doesn't preserve any fetus because you just do it inside the womb instead of outside." (SCOTUS Gonzales v. Carhart #05-380. pg16;4-8.

The result is you have a dead baby outside the womb, either in one piece or in several pieces (which must all be counted for). BTW - have you ever seen this procedure? You should - then you might have an idea what you're ambivalent about.

If you and many others truly think that morality is disconnected from the law, much like Justice Ginsburg, then it really doesn't matter how anyone votes, because the law has been rendered meaningless.

Be either hot or cold, but don't be lukewarm. Have enough intellectual integrity to form a strong opinion on this issue one way or the other.

Posted by Chris Arsenault at February 23, 2007 08:26 PM

The only difference between the statement you suggest and the one he made goes to whether "strict constructionists" (if that's your choice of terminology for non-activists) would overturn Roe.

An essential conservative judicial value is upholding long-established precedent. This principle -- in play even if the precedent was wrongly decided -- received Guiliani's nod.

Guiliani, rightly I think, wants this decision made by the justices themselves. He would not apply a litmus test that an appointee must commit to overturn Roe.

However, I suspect that died in the wool strict constructionists would find a number of decisions of the last half century beyond the pale, and Roe would be one of them.

Posted by Anil Petra at February 23, 2007 08:48 PM

While I may personally be opposed to private firearms ownership, I would not interfere with a woman's right to choose whether or not to own and/or carry one for self-protection.

Posted by Bizzaro Democrat at February 23, 2007 10:15 PM

different issue...there is another "life" here.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 10:22 PM

I am a democrat..i care about protecting a woman's right to chose, gun control, gay rights all the social/liberal issues.

I believe that whoever is president will do all in their pwoer to protect the US with support from the miliatry CIA etc..

I think its great Rudi is running; whether he wins or a democrat candidate does is fine with me- in either case, we will have a liberal as president.

Alot of my democract friends feel the same way- its win win for us.

(Obviuosly i prefer a dem, but as many conservative posters here have noted rudi is a dem in most ways!)

Posted by joan at February 24, 2007 04:44 AM

I have a simple heuristic, which I find moderately reliable: I don't expect Presidents to nominate judges who would rule against that President's own policy preferences. And I don't expect it, regardless of what they might say to the contrary.

Nor do I expect Presidents to cease pursuing their revealed policy preferences once they are elected, once again, regardless of what they might say to the contrary.

Rudy seems to be a man of considerable personal competence and energy. Unfortunately, this is coupled with a fair lack of scruples about how he pursues his goals, and a list of goals which includes several items I purely despise. A campaign conversion to the virtues of federalism does not strike me as a rational reason to ignore this.

Politicians tell lies of convenience. Yes, even about their devotion to federalism.

Posted by Brett Bellmore at February 24, 2007 05:06 AM

You're saying Rudy can have it both ways - appearing pro-life and pro-death at the same time.

No, I'm saying that he can make it clear that it doesn't matter whether or not he's pro-life, since in terms of the only thing that really matters that a president can do that affects the issue--appointing judges--he would do the same thing as someone who was.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 24, 2007 05:15 AM

Uh, the Constitution does not enumerate rights.

Which is why we have the IXth Amendment.

What the Constitution does is to list what the Federal Government may do.

Posted by M. Simon at February 24, 2007 06:13 AM

Rand, a man that stands for nothing will fall for anything. I have a hunch that several million people will care a great deal "whether or not he is pro-life" as you say. Merely skirting that issue will not only create more problems for Rudy, but any candidate who evades the issue.

This has been the Democrats weak link in the abortion debate...they really don't have a stand because they never really offer a coherent, clear one. If you ask 10 Democrats when life begins, you'll get 10 different answers. That's not a position, it's a cop-out.

Posted by Patriccio at February 24, 2007 06:18 AM

No, Rand, he can make it clear that he wants us to believe that it doesn't matter. Making it clear that it IN FACT doesn't matter, would require deeds, not words, and more time than he has available to him.

Politicians lie, and you're asking us to believe his words, over his track record. You will find that few people who dislike that track record are interested in taking that leap.

Posted by Brett Bellmore at February 24, 2007 06:39 AM

Politicians lie, and you're asking us to believe his words, over his track record. You will find that few people who dislike that track record are interested in taking that leap.

You folks seem to be missing the point. Rudy has no track record when it comes to appointing judges. As I said, one can be pro-choice, and still oppose Roe v. Wade.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 24, 2007 07:32 AM

Rudy's "stand" on abortion is more like a "hop around". He jumps to the side of the issue that fits his audience. Isn't that what people are screaming at GWB for doing on issues?

GWB said he was conservative and then spends OUR money like a drunk sailor. He said he was all about better education, then let a liberal Dumbocrat write the bill. They are the ones who screwed it up to start with!! He said we were going to go into Iraq and Afghanistan and take names and kick asses. We have taken some names and kicked some asses, but not enough of either fast or furious enough. The troops have more rules of engagement than bullets. He said he was going to make America safe post 9/11 and our borders look like a sieve. Hell, we arrested, prosecuted and convicted 2 Border Patrol agents for shooting a known drug runner on GWB's watch!

Don't get me wrong, I voted for GWB twice, and I still think both Algore and John Kerry are idiots, but GWB moved way to far toward the middle, a leftward move, after he took office.

We need a Teddy Roosevelt style, old fashioned All-American, chest thumping, President. One with a big stick who wants to walk LOUDLY for a while. We need a penny pincher in the White House who will veto cow fart legislation, who won't allow millions of Homeland Security dollars to go to Kansas and Tennessee while ignoring our southern border. One who will point out lies and hypocrisy among his detractors. A President who will appoint judges to protect the rights of the citizenry, and who won't protect the perps and the ACLU loons. A Chief Exec. who will appoint judges who will look to our constitution and not to European judges and European laws to decide cases. (I don't live in Denmark or France, so screw their laws.)

Rudy ain't that guy.

The problem is that so far all the Republicans who have declared are RINOs.

Posted by Steve at February 24, 2007 07:40 AM

Rand.

I agree that Rudy can be "pro choice" and oppose Roe, but the opposite is accurate as well... someone can be "pro life" and oppose Roe.

The issue is one of the "great ones" of our day. It says a lot one way or the other on your moral and Constitutional values. It is not a great decider for me.. because the POTUS has so little affect on it... but what matters a lot to me is the clarity and vision to which a candidate speaks about the issue.

Saying "I am for it but really against it"?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 24, 2007 07:49 AM

GWB moved way to far toward the middle, a leftward move, after he took office.

If you were shocked by that, you didn't understand what "compassionate conservatism" meant.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 24, 2007 08:10 AM

I didnt know that about Ted Olsen.

Ted Olsen is one of the brightest legal minds in the country. I did not agree with his argument in Bush V Gore, but it was fracken Brilliant.

Reading it and then listening to the arguments brought tears to ones eyes, the legal brilliance that was played out in that brief. The brief knitted together the concepts that Olsen was aruging in such a clever and forthright manner, that the writers of The Constitution no matter if they agreed or disagreed with the theory would have been very proud to have listened to.

I have never understood why he is not a Justice.

I dont agree with him on a lot of things, but his mind is just one of the best Constitutional minds around.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 24, 2007 08:33 AM

Rand.

I dont have a clue apparantly what compassionate conservatism means. So far all I have seen of it in social programs is "we funnel federal money to the institutions we like as oppossed to the ones the liberal Dems like".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 24, 2007 08:35 AM

Rand talks about Imaginary rights, i guess wether or not you believe in a right of privacy

Trust AnonyMoron to make a vapid pointless snip at Rand.

But I must be crazy today, so I will respond.

To "believe in" X is a slippery concept. It can mean at least three different things:

a) to believe X objectively exists and/or inevitable in the future (belief in God, in evolution, in Moon landings)

b) to believe X is possible (belief in Singularity or cure for aging)

c) to believe X is desirable or at least not undesirable (belief in universal suffrage, gun control, freedom from gun control)

I certainly believe right to privacy is desirable. I do not believe it is inevitable. Abortion proponents are so paranoid about Supreme Court membership because Roe vs. Wade CAN be overturned. It is based on "right to privacy", which is not spelled out in the Consitution. It is an interpretation and what one SC interpreted one way, another SC could interpret another way. Not very likely, but it is possible. Now, as I said, I believe right to privacy is desirable, but I am not foolish enough to believe it is inevitable.

OTOH, if right to privacy were written into Constitution (the process known as Amendment), it would be on a much more solid ground. Yet I am not aware of any movement for such an amendment, even among people who would benefit from it most. I wonder why?*

*Serious sentiment -- I am not being sarcastic. Seemingly total absence of such movement really puzzles me.

Posted by Ilya at February 24, 2007 09:15 AM

If Republicans nominate another "compassionate conservative," a large part of their base will either stay home or vote Libertarian, just as they did in 2006.

Of course, Ed. You don't want a compassionate conservative, you want a brandish-principle-like-a-lead-pipe conservative. Duncan Hunter is your man.

Posted by at February 24, 2007 10:06 AM

The Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Everyone forgets it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 24, 2007 10:10 AM

I like Rudy, I'm a pro-choice lib/moderate republican...I don't believe it is the Government's place to coerce that a woman have a child she has no desire to carry to term. That being said, there are alternatives to abortion...(don't let 'em ride "bare-back" honey, the pill, etc).

I'll vote for Rudy, because they far right has way too much power in the Republican party. To win this election, and retake control of Congress, we need MORE moderates running for office, NOT hard-core far right people.

I am concerned about RG's stand on the 2nd Amendment, however, it's not a deal breaker for me, nor for many of the people I know. Additionally, many of the mod-left people I know would vote for Rudy over Hillary any day of the week!

Rich Vail,
Pikesville, MD USA

Posted by Rich Vail at February 24, 2007 10:16 AM

Mike.

The reason people forget about the 9th is that most Americans dont have a clue where "rights" in The Republic originally come from.

Most think that The Constitution gives them (us...aka the people) rights. Not a chance. The Constitution is where "We the People" give the Government some authority over us, and also tell it there are some things you "shall not" do.

Our rights come from "The Creator".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 24, 2007 10:21 AM

Rand,
I never thought "compassionate conservatism" meant bending over and taking one in the tail pipe at every turn, and on every issue either.

sombody said,

Of course, Ed. You don't want a compassionate conservative, you want a brandish-principle-like-a-lead-pipe conservative. Duncan Hunter is your man.

That's exactly what we need. A conservative who will counter the liberal lead pipe with an equally large diameter , equally lengthy conservative one. The problem we now have is that conservative ideals are under constant attack from people who say that,

White, Christian, conservatives want to rule the world and kill babies,

while selling cigarettes and Coca-Cola to kids in Asia and Africa,

AIDS was manufactured by the CIA,

and that all white people who aren't liberal are trying to keep black people in the 'hood because we hate them.

The answer from present conservative leaders is,

"uh uh!!"

That's just not effing strong enough. All the present announcees from the Republican side are "uh uh" guys. We need a lead pipe guy.

Posted by Steve at February 24, 2007 10:28 AM

I, like you have no locked in position on abortion. I agree with Rudy, the fewer the better, but it's settled law.

Partial birth is disgusting and should be done away with except under the narrowest of circumstances.

Posted by Mike at February 24, 2007 10:45 AM

The big question is whether the 2nd amendment voters (and pro life) think his national security credentials are so strong that they trump other considerations.
After all, "assault weapons" bans and similar can be rolled back. Cutting and running from the Islamist war on everyone else would be a disaster of a greater magnitude than leaving the bolsheviks alone in power in Russia in 1919.

The Russians did love their childen too.
Umm Nidal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umm_Nidal) loves only death.

Posted by Ursus Maritimus at February 24, 2007 11:47 AM

The problem is that so far all the Republicans who have declared are RINOs.

I don't understand why you say that they are all RINOs. What about Duncan Hunter? He's not a RINO, he's a rhino! He sounds like exactly what you want. For instance, he's the only one who says straight that the battle of Iraq was a great victory for humanity. All of the others are saying, at the most, that it was a good idea and that we have to make it work, but that Bush fell off the wagon in Iraq. Hunter still calls it LIBERATION.

Likewise on abortion, Hunter is one of the few who says straight that Roe v Wade is an attack on both the unborn and the Constitution. He's not like Giuliani, who is trying to play it both ways. Giuliani says that he's for strict construction, but for all he knows a strict constructionist wouldn't mind Roe v Wade. Giuliani wants to mouth the words "strict construction", but it's not at all clear that he would put TEETH into them.

And what else would you expect from a guy with a Manhattan career? Manhattan is a giant, politically correct rabbit warren. It's a place where simple readings of the law in general were paved over and covered with gum 80 years ago. It may look suspicious that Duncan Hunter is from California, but he represents the inland --- places like Poway --- where life is a lot more traditional than on the freaky left coast.

Now, I personally think that Duncan Hunter is a troglodyte and that Giuliani is a lot less bad. But I don't mind talking your game.

Posted by at February 24, 2007 12:03 PM

Partial birth is disgusting and should be done away with except under the narrowest of circumstances.

Giuliani has already stood on both sides of that one.

Posted by at February 24, 2007 12:08 PM

In the original article, Rand said:

For those who say that he was lying to Hugh, why? Does he have a history of lying?

This is really a very defensive comment, even petulant, especially coming from someone who is not a Republican. It's not that Giuliani is lying, it's that he's many-sided. He wants to agree with as many people as possible. The war on terrorism has been the big exception to that because, partly by circumstance, he has made it his "shtick". He has been on both sides of just about every other issue, especially abortion.

Take a look at Ann Althouse's piece on this in the New York Times. When Larry King supposed that a strict constructionist would overrule Roe v Wade, Giuliani said, "We don't know that". Now that is deep waffling (which on the other hand Althouse likes). The pattern is clear. Giuliani wants to appease Hugh Hewitt's audience, but he also wants to appease Larry King's audience.

If anything, Larry King is a lot more like Giuliani than Hugh Hewitt is. They are both very blunt city rats from New York. (King has moved elsewhere, but still.) Bluntness may appeal to some people here, but even so, in their world, NOTHING is ever simple. They could make crossing the street sound complicated, which in fact it is in New York City.

Posted by at February 24, 2007 12:35 PM

"You folks seem to be missing the point. Rudy has no track record when it comes to appointing judges. As I said, one can be pro-choice, and still oppose Roe v. Wade."

Well, yeah, it's possible, in a trivial, "doesn't violate any accepted laws of physics" sense. But, see my heuristic above: Why should I believe him?

Rudy doesn't have a track record nominating judges. But that's just a means, and he darned well does have a track record as regards to his ends. He wants us to believe that he's such a devoted believer in federalism that he wouldn't use the means the Presidency would provide him, to advance ends we KNOW he wants.

Why should we believe this? He's never demonstrated any concerns about federalism before, when it might get in his way. For instance, he took part in that attempt by the gun control movement to use lawsuits to force the firearms industry, nation-wide, to obey gun control "laws" imposed by a few big cities.

This champion of federalism wanted to use lawsuits in NYC to impose gun control on the entire country. And yet we're supposed to believe that he wouldn't try to impose his policy preferences concerning gun control and abortion on the country, once he was President of the whole country.

Theoretically possible, but only a fool would believe it.

Posted by Brett Bellmore at February 24, 2007 02:16 PM

Why should I believe him?

You could look at his personal conduct. He married Regina Peruggi, born 1946. Then he married Donna Hanover, born 1950. He jilted Hanover at a press conference while he ran against Hillary Clinton, saying "Judith Nathan is a very, very fine person". Then he divorced Hanover and married Judith Nathan, born 1955.

I personally do not mind any of this so much. But then, I am liberal on social issues. Zell Miller said that he admired George Bush for being "the same man on Saturday night and Sunday morning". I think that that is a prudish view of the presidency, which I see more as a professional appointment. Even so, Duncan Hunter fits that standard a lot better than Rudy Giuliani.
And maybe it does have something to do with their views on abortion.

Posted by at February 24, 2007 02:54 PM

Abortion is always going to be available, even if Roe Vs. Wade is overturned. An overturning of Roe vs. Wade will simply move the issue back to the states, just like when the 55MPH speed law was repealed. Some states will limit abortion, others will make it freely available, and California will make it mandatory. Women wanting to get abortions in the states it is banned will simply travel to the states where it is available to have it done. This is no big deal.

Back in the 60's when abortion was not available anywhere in the U.S., people who had money simply got on a flight to Europe and had it done. Any restrictions on abortion will affect only the poor, not the middle class and above.

What's silly is that in this globalized, decentralized world, people are dumb enough to believe that governments can still ban things and make those bans effective.

Posted by Kurt9 at February 25, 2007 12:25 AM

That logic is weak. Embezelment is against the law, people still do it.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 25, 2007 07:48 AM

Robert, the difference is that with embezelment, there is a victim, with abortion, there is not.

In any case, any ban on abortion will not affect anyone with the means to travel. Its effect will be limited to the poor (and people at the left-end of the bell curve). Does anyone in their right mind think that there is a social benefit to increasing the birth-rate of the left end of the bell curve? I'd really like to hear this one.

Posted by Kurt9 at February 25, 2007 11:26 AM

Robert, the difference is that with embezelment, there is a victim, with abortion, there is not.

Kurt, you're just not getting the conservative position. Of course abortion has victims: the unborn.

It's really very simple. Abortion is murder, and murder is already illegal. The libertarian idea that the government "shouldn't be involved" falls flat on its face---who here doesn't want the government to punish murder? The only problem is that there are too many leftist judges who don't see the truth. They are cut from the same cloth as the ones who wrote the monstrous Roe v Wade. As for the juries, it only takes one leftist wacko out of 12 to pull an OJ Simpson. So it's up to legislatures to define murder properly.

Now, I personally think that all of the above is dangerous ideology, worse than simple nonsense. But it is one real side of the discussion. Bush clearly sympathizes to the "abortion is murder" camp; Giuliani may only be paying lip service. I don't see how the ranks of Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians are going to settle the issue any time soon. That's not my problem, though.

Posted by at February 25, 2007 11:37 AM

Posted by Kurt9 at February 25, 2007 11:26 AM

There is only one victim in any crime.

Society. The one that gives it standing in law is society. Running a red light when no one is there still is a crime. Why? Because society through due process has said so. The entire English (and American system of common law) rest on the "soverign" being the victim in a crime. That is why in England the courts are called Queens Bench and why in the US the cases are style "The People....."

there is no such thing as a victimless crime.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 25, 2007 12:54 PM

to the commentor with no name,

I wasn't aware Duncan Hunter had declared officially. I knew he was looking at it. All I keep hearing is the big well known names, as I said the RINOs. I will be looking to see what Hunter offers.

Personally, I happen to like the troglodyte agenda over the RINO agenda. Lead Pipe.

Posted by Steve at February 25, 2007 01:48 PM

Hunter has declared. He is simply marvelous. He might be the Reagan of our era.

"this nation does freedom well..."

what a phrase.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 25, 2007 02:23 PM

> I dont have a clue apparantly what compassionate conservatism means. So far all I have seen of it in
> social programs is "we funnel federal money to the institutions we like as oppossed to the ones the
> liberal Dems like".

A "compassionate conservative" is a moderate-to-liberal Republican who thinks he can compromise with the left by giving them nearly everything they want.

Contrary to your statement, Bush has funnelled money into the very same social programs the left has called for. Massive aid to public education? Check. Prescription drug coverage? Check. Land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth? Check.

Democrats would be cheering for those programs if a Democrat proposed them, but excoriate them because Bush proposed them and because there's one issue (surrender in Iraq) where Bush has not given them what they want. "Triangulation" does not work for Republicans.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 25, 2007 02:32 PM

I will be looking to see what Hunter offers.

It's not as if you have to wait. Just type in "go hunter" in Goog.le and you will get to his campaign site. It has his platform and everything.

Posted by at February 25, 2007 02:52 PM

I don't care about the conservative position on abortion. We can argue that abortion is murder as opposed to it being a woman's right to control her own body until the sun expands and never agree with each other. This is irrelevant. The reality is that if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, it will simply become a state issue, just like speed limits on the highways. States will have different regulations on abortion based on how liberal or conservative that state is.

Any woman seeking an abortion in a state where it is banned will simply travel to a state (or out of the country) where it is available. This means that reality of any ban on abortion will have zero effect on anyone with the means to travel. This is reality. Get used to it.

So, this means that the partical result of any debate on abortion will affect ONLY those women who lack the means to travel, which is the poor. Again, this is reality. So the real question about abortion is: do we want poor people to have access to abortion, or do we want poor people to have more kids. I would prefer that poor people have access to abortion.

We can debate the philosophical issue of abortion until the sun goes nova. But reality is reality, which will be just as I described.

Posted by kurt9 at February 25, 2007 06:22 PM

Posted by kurt9 at February 25, 2007 06:22 PM..

I have my own views on abortion. Right now they are that The Constitution gives a woman two/thirds of a term to make up her mind. I weep for that because in my spiritual life it is I believe a sin to purposly abort a fetus "much" (OK thats vague) after conception. I can explain "Much" and how I come to that conclusion that it is a sin if (gasp) anyone is interested.

However my Constitutional view is the one that is paramount in the body politic...and actually it might be shifting a tad because of some recent "events".

However.

ON a theoretical side I really dont, disconected, from the concept of abortion right or wrong have much "heartburn" with the thing going to the states. With the inequaities there in.

The states in our system are still, despite a strong federal government quite alive (I believe in the 10th and 14th equally) .

It is like the min wage. If a state wants to both suffer the problems and bear the goodness of a higher Min wage...go ahead raise it to heck 30 dollars an hour...I dont care.

The citizens of a state get to well bear the consequences and successes of this type of policy...if it is predominatly a good thing...Zounds they benefit...if is a hoser...they lose jobs.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 25, 2007 07:14 PM

kurt9 - the current law of the land is not Roe - it's Casey, decided with a plurality (3 justices) and not a majority. I suggest you read it.

Your argument regarding availability of abortion - abortion clinics are closing because the poor of many areas do not have the cash (abortion is a cash-only business) to keep that business profitable, and other options aren't provided. Health insurance companies prefer cash paid abortions because it's more profitable to them than live births.

Additionally, abortion is increasingly used as a form of birth control with multiple abortions by the same women. The numbers indicate the optimal cash time for an abortion is between the 12th and 22nd week where the surgical procedure is more expensive. After that time period, the baby is more developed and ripping apart a child in the womb is rather rough on a woman's reproductive organs. That's why Tiller prefers saline and other "doctors" prefer to perform 'intact D&Xs" - the Partial Birth Abortion. In the SCOTUS case, the Counsel for PPA is suggesting that the safest abortion is one where the child is extracted and left to die outside the womb. In my book that's called being born. And failure to give aid to the child violates all sorts of laws. Also because it is premeditated and the "fetal demise", is intentional it's also a clear case of 1st degree murder. Yet 98% of the children (fetuses) never make it out of the uterus in one piece because the force of trying to turn the child in-utero dislocates joints, the procedure then gets more complicated and various sharp instruments must be employed with greater risk to the mother (who is called a mother because she's with child...).

I strongly suggest that you do your research in these areas.

My argument against abortion is based on one reason alone - the unborn are human beings from the moment of their conception, and there are only 4 differences between them and us, with none of those differences justifying the right to kill them. Those differences are size, level of development, environment and dependency.

That last difference, dependency is vital. The unborn are considered posterity, you can't deny them that - and as such it's the President's constitutional obligation to protect them. Rand is wrong, placement of judges is not the only means the POTUS has on this issue, he can also veto good legislation. Bill Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and it took additional effort to put it in place, where it is now being tried by the SC.

If you truly believe a mother has a right to kill her child, then the Susan Smiths of the USA need to be freed and never tried for murder.

The question politicians steadily avoid is the one question that MUST be answered: What is the unborn? If the answer is "not human", then by all means abortion should be available and no laws should be made against it, but if the answer is that the unborn are human, and we fail to protect our weakest and most innocent, then all other laws related to murder are rendered non-sensical.

Be intellectually honest enough to do good research and provide rational and valid arguments.

Posted by Chris Arsenault at February 26, 2007 05:23 AM

If Giuliani is the nominee, will the Catholic Bishops condemn him for his pro-choice views like they did John Kerry?

Posted by Offside at February 26, 2007 06:04 AM

Chris,

I stand by my point about the effects of over turning Roe ve. Wade in that it will not significantly affect the availability of abortion for most people. If, as you say, the abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods are already going out of business because the people can't afford the procedure, then the effect of a Roe overturn will be even more minimal than I suggested previously. In this case, it probably will not affect the abortion rate at all.

My point is the legal ramification of a overturn of Roe vs. Wade. Such an overturn will simply toss the issue back to the states, just like when the 55MPH speed law was repealed. This is fine with me as every other aspect of family and marrage law is considered a state issue, why make abortion into a federal issue? Even if you consider abortion to be murder, murder itself is a state crime. There is no federal statute of murder.

The reality is that some states will ban it. Others will not. You can rant and rave about abortion be murder, blah blah blah all you want. As far as the actually affects of a Roe overturn, this is irrelevant.

The reality is that, for the people of means, abortion will always be an option.

Posted by Kurt9 at February 26, 2007 09:36 AM

I'll be voting for Ron Paul in Primaries and i will write in his name if I have toin the general election.
The Constitution cannot survive another 4 yrs of a socialist democrats or a socialist "Neo Con" Republican.

Ron Paul is probably the only candidate running in two main parties that still believes in Constitutional Rule of Law.

www.ronpaulexplore.com - Ron Paul for President 2008

Posted by Davy C Rockett at February 26, 2007 07:04 PM

Pro-life is probably my number one issue, but I'd probably be happy if Giuliani made Simberg's statement. The difference between what Simberg said and what Giuliani has said so far is the explicit rejection of Roe v. Wade. Prolifers were willing to accept wink-wink talk about judges from George Bush because we had reason to believe that his instincts were pro-life. But from Giuliani we need more reassurance, viz., an explicit rejection of Roe.

I'd probably also want at least a promise not to allow federal abortion funding or else a conversion on partial birth abortion.

Posted by Adam Greenwood at February 27, 2007 02:05 PM

I have lots of respect for Ted Olsen (well, no I don't, but not for reasons that are germane here. I do have enormous respect for his legal acumen). But moving in conservative legal circles like I do, I'd say he has real establishment Republican tendencies. Him supporting Giuliani doesn't move me much.

Posted by Emperor of Icecream at February 27, 2007 02:14 PM

Post a comment