Saturday, February 03, 2007

Interesting Questions to Ponder

There is little question that for the most part, Rudy Giuliani is a liberal on several significant social issues like legalized abortion. On that basis alone, social conservatives in the Republican Party, such as myself, would normally not have a reason to support Giuliani's yet to be announced candidacy for President.

But here's the thing. Important issues like abortion have pretty much been out of the hands of our publicly elected officials since 1973. Sure, there are some things our legislatures can and should do to curb the frequency of abortion, but the bottom line fact is they can't outright ban it because abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court to be a constitutionally protected right.

It therefore stands to reason that until the Supreme Court reverses itself in rulings like Roe v. Wade, whether a candidate for President is pro-life just may not be that important; at least in the short term. Indeed, what might actually be a more appropriate gauge for pro-lifers and social conservatives in evaluating a presidential candidate for 2008 is the kind of judges that candidate would appoint to the Federal courts. On that, Ed Morrissey from Captain's Quarters provides information which strongly suggests that if Rudy Giuliani were elected President, he would appoint Federal judges who are in the mold of Justices Scalia, Alito and Roberts (why Justice Thomas was not mentioned is a bit curious)and presumptively in favor of reversing cases like Roe.

On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I'm a lawyer. I've argued cases in the Supreme Court. I've argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that's part of our freedom and when that's taken away from you that's terrible.

Is this enough for pro-life advocates and other social conservatives to support a probable Giuliani candidacy for President? Would it make a difference that several polls show Giuliani as the only nationally known Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head match? Frankly, these are questions that I myself will have to work through.

No comments: