Rudy Giuliani's strategy for coping with his liberal record on cultural issues seems to be to agree to appoint very conservative judges to the federal bench. My guess is that the problem here is that, in light of his record (indeed, in light of his record on judicial appointments) is going to have to be much more explicit about his desire to appoint abortion-banning judges than someone with a pro-life record would. Consequently, he might wind up actually creating a bigger problem for himself with pro-choice moderates than a pro-lifer willing to be vague (see, e.g., Bush, George W.) has.
« Sweet | Main | Mars, Bitches »
Giuliani's Judges
12 Mar 2007 01:24 pm
Comments (18)
Those judges could be problematic, but remember that they were for the very lowest level of the courts. Not a lot of really important decisions were being made by them (e.g., they didn't rule on Constitutional questions), so there's a better argument for ignroing ideology there.
DS, thus MY includes that link labeled "record."
Al:
Not a lot of really important decisions were being made by them (e.g., they didn't rule on Constitutional questions)
The moral relatvism that will be required for social conservatives to support either Giuliani or Romney is going to be a real hoot to watch.
This seems like a smaller problem than you're making it out to be, especially as conservatives these days seem willing to accept some light to moderate flip flopping from the three big candidates. The people who care (let's go ahead and call them the "base") will know exactly what he's talking about when he says "it's important to appoint judges who don't create their own social policy", or whatever his line is. Other people who don't really care about abortion ("moderates," if you will) don't really have an egg to fry in this case, and the social policy line sounds reasonable enough to register as "straight-talk" or some variant.
The only stumbling block might be a direct question to Rudy asking if he's willing to use an abortion litmus test when appointing judges. Instructively, in 2000 Bush felt comfortable enough to hedge on this question, while McCain came right out and said yes. However, Rudy's image as a crime fighter and law and order type should allow him to finagle and answer that keeps him on the good sides of both moderates and the base.
That's why they invented the dog whistle.
This seems like a smaller problem than you're making it out to be, especially as conservatives these days seem willing to accept some major 180-degree reversals from the three big candidates.
Fixed. And the point still holds.
And Mr. Giuliani will simply continue to say that he will appoint judges like Justice Alito, which will be just fine with the so-called moderates. After all, if Mr. Alito really were as poisonously pro-corporate, anti-choice, and anti-civil rights as his track record documented, Senate Democrats would have blocked his confirmation.
"Rudy Giuliani's strategy for coping with his liberal record on cultural issues seems to be to agree to appoint very conservative judges to the federal bench. My guess is that the problem here is that, in light of his record (indeed, in light of his record on judicial appointments) is going to have to be much more explicit about his desire to appoint abortion-banning judges than someone with a pro-life record would. Consequently, he might wind up actually creating a bigger problem for himself with pro-choice moderates than a pro-lifer willing to be vague (see, e.g., Bush, George W.) has."
This is one of few hopes Mrs. Clinton has. My belief is that there will be genuine fear among centrist Independents about the prospect of backsliding on abortion rights next year, and if Giuliani does not maintain his pro-choice bonifides and pledge to put moderates on the bench the election could even turn on the issue of abortion, and turn in Mrs. Clinton's favor.
1:45 (and others): They may not be federal appellate court judges, but they still rule on constitutional issues. And I believe the mayor appoints Family Court judges, too, which is potentially an area for exploration. I missed the link, because I assumed it went to his comments regarding his intent to nominate conservative judges.
I wholly disagree that this is a minor issue for Mr. Giuliani. He's attempting to bolster his social conservative credentials on judicial nominees because it's the only place he can credibly distinguish his record. But he has a record in this area; and attacking those nominees to the city courts also subtlely reinforces his lack of national experience.
Semi-tangentially, the Democrats would be wise to start pulling apart Roberts and Alito in the public eye, as they should have done from the confirmation hearings. Roberts is a better judge, smarter, more accomplished, and more committed (at least at this point) to court unity and consensus building. He's certainly a better Chief than the racist jerk (ex: Renquist once used the term "wetback" in a court conference) he replaced.
If the Dems were smarter in 2005, they would have confirmed Roberts unanimously, setting up a "Roberts Standard" by which to reject Bush's 2nd nomination, which everyone knew was coming, and which everyone knew would be a sop to the conservatives after the Miers thing. Instead, they threw up piddling opposition to both judges, and generally fucked the whole thing up (if you ask me, the whole thing bears the fingerprints of John Kerry, but that's neither here nor there).
But now, as conservative candidates use the names Roberts and Alito interchangably as examples of the kind of judges they'd appoint, it's worth it for the Dems to claim back Roberts, and leave Alito--the less accomplished and more partisan judge--to the GOP. If Hillary, Edwards, or Obama started praising GWB' decision to nominate such a qualified and non-partisan judge, they'd reap the benefits of appearing moderate and bipartisan, while also knocking out a major support beam of a GOP talking point.
The conservative base wouldnt' mind hearing about the Alito clones to be nominated to the bench, but the general electorate would be far less impressed, I think, if Alito's name was held up without Roberts'.
I agree with Ben. I don't think you're going to scare too many people away from voting Republican by dangling the ominous specter of John Roberts in front of them. "Oh no, the elephant will seat more brilliant, accomplished, fairly nonpartisan judges on the bench..."
Judges aren't all a bunch of enigmatic Souters these days. As long as you promise to appoint a bunch of Federalist Society types, everyone on the conservative side will be happy.
I'm glad Matt posted on this because I think that the clamor among Republican candidates to go hard right is going to cost them big time in the general election. In the 2000 primaries, the party coelesced around Bush quickly and he never had to show the controversial side of his social conservative beliefs. In addition, the party wasn't consumed with continuing AND EXTENDING a very unpopular war. Come the general election, Bush played down his culture warrior credentials and the press and American people mostly believed him. 2008's Republican nominee will have worked so hard to show the wignuts that he's a right wing extremist that it'll be impossible to run as a pragmatic centrist (rather than a pragmatic opportunist) when the general election rolls around.
Come the general election, Bush played down his culture warrior credentials and the press and American people mostly believed him. 2008's Republican nominee will have worked so hard to show the wignuts that he's a right wing extremist that it'll be impossible to run as a pragmatic centrist.
Well, this remains to be seen, and it also depends a lot on perspective. For the time being, Giuliani appears to be doing a pretty good job at doing a very soft wink/nod toward his party's social conservatives, while at the same time not saying anything overly, controversially, right-wing. Indeed, he's currently getting all kinds of publicity (seen Drudge today?) for his moderate and liberal pronouncements during the 80s and 90s -- publicity that might well cement his moderate image in the eyes of centrist voters (and that might make it difficult to tag his as a Jesse Helms in the fall of 2008).
Of course, from the perspective of social conservatives, Rudy likely will have to provide more red meat, and more splainin' away his early apostasy, than he's doing now. Polls schmolls, I can't believe Giuliani is going to coast to the nomination without becoming rather more "explicit" (to quote Matt) about what kind of judges he favors. The question isn't whether or not Giuliani is going to get a certain amount of grief from his party's right wing. The question is how much, and how (and whether) he can overcome it. If he can finesse these issues, he's surely the best GOP hope to win next year. I just can't see the Dems being able to paint gun-hatin', homo-lovin', abortion-fundin' Rudy Giuliani as some kind of right-wing extremist unless he really is forced to go off the deep edge to get the nomination. Although this is possible, I think a more likely scenario is that he simply won't get the nomination.
You guys really don't know Rudy. He will appoint the judges he wants to appoint, based on whatever matters to him at the time of appointment. He does not like to be bound by any kind of external constraints, including his own word.
That being said, don't count on him to appoint a bunch of pro-gay pro-union types. He will tend to appoint the following types, in order of importance:
1. Loyalists. Always #1 for Rudy.
2. Prosecutors. They're the only folk he really knows or understands. Fitzgerald would be his idea of a perfect judge.
3. Political favors. On a cash and carry basis. As I said, Rudy's word isn't worth much.
4. The usual mechanism--Republican senatorial choices. This is probably worth much less than the others. He would always be willing to work with the local power structure in NYC, if the power structure were loyal to him.
Forget about the judges, Rudy is in another drag queen video saying "I'm already a Republican playing a Democrat playing a Republican": http://www.solidpolitics.com
Many conservatives are signing petitions like this one to oppose Giuliani
See
http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/
> Rudy is in another drag queen video saying "I'm already a
> Republican playing a Democrat playing a Republican"
WSJ recently commented the 2008 Presidential elections will be the most difficult for a GOP candidate in 30 years. It isn't difficult to see why considering two of the frontrunners (McCain and Giuliani) have the unenviable task of defending the current Administration's deeply unpopular foreign policy. To make matters worse, the GOP base loathes McCain and does not like Giuliani's "values". McCain used to to well liked by independents and even some Democrats for backing some policies that are universally popular but disliked by Republicans. These days, the former straight-talking maverick is desperately pandering to social conservatives which will alienate his former supporters. Giuliani will fare no better with centrist voters since he seems to be a genuine *sshole who is not even liked by his own family.
This leaves Mitt Romney, the flip-flopping Massachusetts governor, who will say and promise anything to get elected. Hardly the ideal candidate, but at least he is a genuine outsider. He just *might* have a chance against HRC.
Comments closed March 26, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
As mayor, he was required to appoint judges. It would be interesting to see the records of those he appointed.
Posted by DS | March 12, 2007 1:35 PM