Who should be trusted to appoint the best people to the bench, Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Romney? Hint: He's been married once, not three times, never divorced, never had a marriage annulled and takes his faith seriously.
LifeNews.com Editor Steven Ertelt issued an important and timely warning in the form of an article entitled "Rudy Giuliani Flip-Flops, Now won't Answer Roe Abortion Question."
"Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani appears to have flip-flopped on what he thinks about the Supreme Court potentially overturning its landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling. Giuliani hasn't suddenly become pro-life; instead, he told the Wall St. Journal he now won't answer the question of what he thinks.
"In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published over the weekend, Giuliani was asked: ''Roe v Wade, should it be overturned?'
"Giuliani demurred, saying, 'I don't answer that because I wouldn't want a judge to have to answer that.'
"'I think a conservative strict constructionist judge could come to either conclusion,' he added.
"Yet, Giuliani has answered the question before -- as recently as mid-May when he said he would be 'okay' if the court overturned Roe, but also okay if the court upheld it.
"The former New York City mayor made the same comments during the May 3 Republican presidential debate, when he said he would be fine with either outcome.
"The Wall St. Journal also asked Giuliani which members of the Supreme Court meet his standards for intellectual honesty and would be the type of judges he would appoint. Ironically, Giuliani named all of the four judges who have either said they would overturn Roe or are considered the most supportive of doing so.
"'[Samuel] Alito, [John] Roberts--I would have appointed either one of them,' he replied. '[Antonin] Scalia clearly does [meet the standard], and [Clarence] Thomas. I would have appointed any one of the four of them.'"
BEWARE: Rudy is Planned Parenthood's favorite Republican presidential hopeful for a reason: he's pro-choice.
It's easy for Rudy to say he would have appointed Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito. They are already on the bench.
But did Rudy appoint faithful adherents of judicial restraint like them when he was Mayor of New York City?
No. He appointed to please New York's pro-abortion Liberal Party.
It is fitting, in a perverse way, that Rudy hedged with The Wall Street Journal, since its editors apparently have a problem understanding the role of justices and judges too.
Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center: "In the course of an otherwise intelligent discussion of the Supreme Court’s just-ended term, this house editorial in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal states: 'In outlawing a late-term abortion procedure and on racial preferences, [Justice Kennedy] sided with the four conservatives.' (Emphasis added.) Set aside the political labeling (which pervades the editorial). How can the Wall Street Journal editorialists state that the Supreme Court majority 'outlaw[ed] a late-term abortion procedure”? Surely they must know that it was an Act of Congress, signed into law by the President, that generally 'outlaw[ed]' partial-birth abortion and that the Supreme Court majority ruled merely that the law is facially constitutional? Why does this elementary distinction so readily escape bright and educated minds?"
The problem is that the poison produced by the manipulators in the leftist-dominated media can even infect Wall Street Journal editors.Mr. Giuliani is slyly suggesting, but not promising, that he would appoint the kind of justices who would return regulation of abortion to the states, where the Constitution put it before activist justices created a constitutional right to abortion.
Reality: Mr. Giuliani would find judicial nominees acceptable to his Planned Parenthood friends.
For a clear signal as to which presidential hopeful to trust, look to the leaders of Judicial Confirmation Network (www.judicialnetwork.com).
Judicial Confirmation Network is a citizens' organization that supports the confirmation of highly qualified individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States and works to ensure that the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote.
It believes that the proper role of a judge or justice is to interpret the law and the Constitution – not make up the law and deprive We the people of the right to govern ourselves by abusing the power of the court to impose his or her personal or political agenda on the people.
udicial Confirmation Network's principled principlals are Gary Marx, Executive Director, and Wendy E. Long, Chief Counsel.
Mr. Marx and Mrs. Long are, respectively, a chair and a vice chair of the Romney for President National Faith and Values Steering Committee, a coalition of supporters who will advise Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on matters of faith and values.
Mr. Romney: ""The men and women of our National Steering Committee represent decades spent defending faith, religious expression and traditional values. I believe that our Party and our nation must stand for strong families, traditional marriage and the sanctity of human life. I am proud to be joined by these leaders in our campaign to change Washington."
Who should be trusted to appoint the best people to the bench, Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Romney?
Hint: He's been married once, not three times, never divorced, never had a marriage annulled and takes his faith seriously.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.