As others are noting, it doesn't really seem that the Mayor is being candid on abortion. In fact, in this interview with Laura Ingraham he pretty clearly implies that he did not agree with the initial Roe vs. Wade decision - a big concession for one who says he has no opinion on it now:
RG: ...and you'll understand this Laura. I would seek a judge who I believe is going to interpret the Constitution with intellectual honesty and try to determine what somebody else meant when they wrote things; what the framers meant, what the people who amended the Constitution meant or what Congress means at any particular time or the people...
LI: Right, but Mayor with all due respect you can't believe that the framers intended to write an implicit right to abort in our Constitution - you can't believe that?
RG: Nor do I think the framers wrote an exclusionary rule into our Constitution.. nor did the framers write in the Constitution that you should issue Miranda warnings...
LI: Well those are other issues...
RG: Now what has the Court done with those that - including...
LI: Well, make a lot of mistakes.
RG: What the Court has done is they've limited those decisions...
So he thought the initial decision was unfounded, but he has no opinion on it now? How likely is that?
And the Mayor says he hates abortion, but the Politico reports that he donated to Planned Parenthood multiple times. Is that probable?
If the Mayor wants to win the support of conservatives, it's critical that he come across as believable, sincere and trustworthy. These abortion answers aren't helping.
Note too that in the Ingraham interview, he continues to say that he doesn't agree with those who want to throw people in jail. It's my pet peeve...
1 comment:
Giuliani doesn't say he disagrees with Roe, he says the founders would not have agreed with the intepretation. He doesn't really say whether he believes their intentions are controlling on the matter, remaining determinedly ambiguous by invoking other examples of judicial legislation which have been more or less accepted.
All this really does, though, is urgently call into question what exactly Giuliani means when he proposes to nominate "strict constructionists," since he already should have provoked concern with his declaration that a strict constructionist could somehow decide that Roe was binding precedent.
Post a Comment