The (pro-life) company you keep (if you're Giuliani)

Perry also endorsed GWB. So much for his judgment.

How can any of these people support Don Giuliano? Oh, I know. He looks good in a dust mask. He manages by walking around. He is going to beat up all the tearists & aliens from out of space before over there so he won't have to fight them in Times Square. He's big! He's bad! He's tough! He's the Godfather! He's Don Giuliano! Not to be playing soon at your local White House.

Hmm, so Rudy is willing to promise to appoint judges who he disagrees with the views of in order to get the nomination. What political courage. What devotion to his ideals.

Hope his mistress, uhmmm, wife doesn't call while giving a speech.

OK, let me get this straight.

Rudy is pro-choice, and wants the states to be able to decide for themselves.

But then he says he will appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will TAKE AWAY that right from the states.

Huh????

“He clearly said ... you can look for people like Scalia and Roberts and Alito. Let me tell you, I can live with that.”

Sweet. "I can live with that."

"Just get me to the White House, principles be damned! I have a date with Destiny!"

As a Texas resident, I can tell you that Rick Perry is one of the most corrupt, dishonest politicians that I have ever seen. If Texas had not had a 4 way race, Rick Perry would not be our governor. He is looking to be Vice President with Guiliani. Two crooked peas in a pod.

The opinion of anybody from Texas is irrelevant.

Swamp Censors, wouldn't you say all these comments calling Rudy Giuliani "Don Giuliano" and "Godfather" to be rather racist?

Would you allow me calling Barack Obama "Snoop Dogg Obama" or that Obama is leader of the Crips?

Or what if I call Bill Richardson, "Frito Bandito"?

And, then we have the Blithering Idiot, BC, saying that the opinion of anyone from Texas is "irrelevent." This from the geography-challenged man, who belives the Dominican Republic is in "Central America," and that Cuba is "not in the Gulf of Mexico."
Soon, BC, will think Illinois is in Canada and that Canada is part of Europe.

A little cheese to go with that whine, John?

John D-

Rather than your typivcal blanket attack on other posters, why don't you address the actual issue of the post for once?

Why should anyone trust Giuliani if he is so willing to openly compromise his beliefs to secure the nomination?

[quote]
Posted by: John D | October 17, 2007 11:54 AM
[/quote]

Someday I might believe that you have an IQ that is greater than 10.

But that day hasn't arrived yet.

What's this BS about the Dominican Republic?

Rudy is pro-choice, and wants the states to be able to decide for themselves.

But then he says he will appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will TAKE AWAY that right from the states.

Huh????

Posted by: BobinATL | October 17, 2007 11:05 AM

BobinATL:

I am no Giuliani fan, and so don’t read this as my coming to his defense. I’m not. But I think you are missing the mechanics of the law, and/or the perspectives of the Justices whose names have been bandied about.

Justices like Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas would not vote to deprive the States of their right to decide whether to keep abortion legal or outlaw it. The worst they would do is overrule Roe v. Wade and hold that the “right to choose” is not a right protected by the federal Constitution. At that point, every state would be able to decide the issue of keeping or abolishing abortion rights for themselves.

To be sure, the Supreme Court can’t tell the States that they can’t allow abortions to continue. It doesn’t have the power to do that. Thus, overruling Roe would not make all abortions illegal. A number of States including California had statutes authorizing abortions even before Roe v. Wade was decided. Presumably, most “blue” states would continue to make abortions legal. It is only in “red” states that people would have to cross state lines to get an abortion.

The opinion of anybody from Texas is irrelevant.

Posted by: BC | October 17, 2007 11:20 AM

Right.

Texas has 34 EC votes. That makes it the second most significant state in presidential elections next to California (which has 55 EC votes). That means the opinion of Texans is highly relevant to presidential politics.

Roberts, (and I think Scalia and Alito and Thomas) aren't for "taking away" the right to choose. They take a conservative view of the relationship between the constitution and abortion. Since the constitution doesn't mention abortion, they DO in fact see it as an issue for the states to decide. They would possibly end any federal attempt to preserve the right to choose over the state's rights to outlaw the procedures.

Johnny D:

Which is worse - calling Rudy the Godfather, or calling a former first lady scum??

As for all the names you suggest for the Democrats? You don't have to say them, because your friends Rush, Bill-O, Ann, Hannity, Jonah Goldberg, etc. have already done that in one form or another for you.

[quote]
Cuba is "not in the Gulf of Mexico."
[/quote]

Dumb Dumb Little John "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood" D; everyone except you KNOWS that Cuba IS NOT in the Gulf of Mexico. Here, I'll let Encyclopaedia Britannica Online PROVE YOUR WRONG:

"The Caribbean Sea, suboceanic basin of the western Atlantic Ocean, lying between latitudes 9° and 22° N and longitudes 89° and 60° W."

link: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109730/Caribbean-Sea

Their map CLEARLY SHOWS that Cuba IS NOT in the Gulf of Mexico!

What an incompetent "journalist" you are. Learn how to do research and then come back here to post.

The opinion of anybody from Texas is irrelevant.

Posted by: BC | October 17, 2007 11:20 AM

This was meant for Texas' governor Perry, not any actual resident of that state. I apologize to any Texas residents who were offended.

Of course, they did vote overwhelmingly for the Shrub...

John W.

Still, we are seeing the gradual erosion of abortion rights under this administration. Plus, how many of our individual rights are being taken away thanks to justices like Alito, Scalia, etc?

What will be interesting is to see what the decisions that will be upcoming from this Supreme Court look like - especially the Guantanamo ones.

Also, I would like to see what the Supreme Court thinks about all the signing statements Bush adds that allow him to decide which laws he follows and which he doesn't.

"To be sure, the Supreme Court can’t tell the States that they can’t allow abortions to continue."

Are you sure John W?

Could the Court find that unborn fetuses are human life and therefore are covered by the equal protection clause? A law allowing the killing of that life and not other lives (i.e. murder laws) would not provide equal protection to both categories of "citizens" and would therefore be uncontitutional.

Note that I am not supporting that interpretation, but merely suggesting that is is a possible conclusion that that justices in the Scalia/Alito/Roberts mode might come to.

* * * * *

Posted by: AJF | October 17, 2007 2:12 PM

I understand your concern, but I seriously doubt that the court would take the unprecedented step of recognizing a fetus as a person entitled to constitutional protection.

This is why: The reason the current members of the Court appear willing to roll back the right to an abortion is that they don't find that right in the Constitution itself. They view the Constitution as substantially emptier than previous era courts (like the Warren Court or even the Burger Court). Their new mantra is "textual support" - meaning that the text of the Constitution has to support the recognition of some new right.

I personally don't agree entirely with this approach because of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I believe that strict authorization is necessary only to support the exercise of governmental powers - because the federal government is supposed to be a limited government with a finite powers. That's what the Tenth Amendment says. As for individual rights, however, the Ninth Amendment reminds us that the mention of rights in the Constitution should not be interpreted to disparage other rights not enumerated. After all, the Constitution didn’t create any of the rights it identifies – it only recognizes and protects them. All of those rights existed at common law. Thus, it is not improper to discern personal rights that cannot be infringed by legislatures or the ballot box that do not have immediate or direct textual support in the Constitution.

But in any event, the current members of the Supreme Court would be hard pressed to find a textual basis upon which to hold that a fetus is a person entitled to the protections of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or another. Had there been textual support for the notion that a fetus is a “person” – as that word is used in the Constitution – and that such “persons” have Constitutional rights, then it would have been impossible for the Court to decide Roe, as it did, in the first place. Rehnquist dissented in Roe, but even he failed to point to some textual basis for finding that a fetus has constitutional rights. His only beef with the holding in that case was that the majority of the Court found a constitutional right that the Constitution did not protect.

* * * * *

Posted by: BobinATL | October 17, 2007 1:59 PM

1. The administration – itself – does not take away rights. If you have an inalienable right, the government cannot take it away. It may deny or abridge a right to the point of making it useless, but it can never take it away. This is not just legal babble either. The next, good administration would have a duty to restore any such rights unlawfully abridged by the previous occupants of the White House.

2. I am unaware that the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, has taken away any of our rights. They have narrowed some of them, such as the rights of minors to free speech, but they haven’t taken any rights away entirely. Even when they upheld the Constitutionality of the federal partial-birth abortion ban (because the A.C.L.U. screwed up and failed to argue all available grounds to challenge it) – they still affirmed the basic rights under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

3. I don’t think the current administration is going to like the decisions of the Court with regard to decisions in the near future regarding Guantanamo. Their most recent cases have already held (essentially) that prisoners in Guantanamo have the right to seek habeas corpus.

4. I don’t think the Supreme Court has any cases before it concerning President Bush’s signing statements. However, if the Court follows its own precedent in this regard, it will hold that President Bush’s signing statements have no significance at all on the effect of laws, and that such laws are effective as written when signed into law. In New York v. Clinton, the Court held that a line-item veto was unconstitutional because Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution only gives the President two choices when a bill is presented to him: He can either veto it and return it to the house of Congress in which it originated; or he can sign it, in which case it becomes a law. In the Clinton, line-item veto case, the Court held that the third option of authorizing some of a law, and vetoing some of, it is not an option open to the President under the Constitution. The same reasoning was employed in the earlier case of INS v. Chadha. So, if the Court uses the same reasoning found in the Clinton and Chadha cases, then it will find that Bush approves laws when he signs them, and that his attempt at a partial veto is entirely ineffectual and inconsequential.

"So, if the Court uses the same reasoning found in the Clinton and Chadha cases, then it will find that Bush approves laws when he signs them, and that his attempt at a partial veto is entirely ineffectual and inconsequential."

So then, if Bush does not implement the full law, and follow the requirements of the full law, not regarding his signing statements, does that open him up to legal consequences for his failure to properly implement the laws as written?

So then, if Bush does not implement the full law, and follow the requirements of the full law, not regarding his signing statements, does that open him up to legal consequences for his failure to properly implement the laws as written?

Posted by: AJF | October 17, 2007 4:12 PM

I would certainly think that it could. It is the President’s duty under the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . ." (See U.S. Const., Art II, Sec. 3.) In carrying out his duty to execute the laws, the President does not have the power to suspend the operation of any law. Only Congress has the power to suspend a law, and that power is limited to suspending habeas corpus for a limited time under certain circumstances. (See Id., Art. I, Sec. 9). That the Constitution gives only Congress that limited power to suspend laws means the President cannot have the same “implied” power of any sort. So, at the very most, the President may have some discretion under the law as to how and under what circumstances the law will be executed, but he can never act like a law doesn’t exist or implement it in an unintended manner.

So what can be done about it? Well, if the non-discretionary portions of the law grants some entitlement, a person beneficially interested in that entitlement can probably seek an administrative remedy with the agency designated to carry out that law. Failing that, the person can sue for his or her rights. This is the normal procedure.

In general, everyone is entitled to act as those laws are in full force and effect. It is only when the administration tries to treat those laws like they don’t exist, or that they operate only in the manner stated in a signing statement, then one can argue: 1) the signing statement is meaningless per Article I, Section 7 argument based on the Chadha and Clinton cases; and 2) the President’s interpretation is not borne out by the plain language of the law.

If you mean to ask whether the President can get in some kind of trouble for failure to execute a law as written, I am unsure. That would depend on whether the law he ignores or violates contains criminal sanctions for its violation (like FISA does), and/or on whether there exists some federal crime for nonfeasance or misfeasance in office. I have never heard of such a law, although I don’t think its a bad idea. Impeachment is only a remedy for criminal behavior in office (See U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 4), and not for being an idiot or a bad politician.

""Value Voters Summit" staged by Family Research Council's Tony Perkin "

♫As the prices go up up up!
The 'values' go down down down! ♪

Tony Perkins this season♬
Will show you the reason
For no tolerance!
Zero tolerance! ♪

Hey guys the truth is no matter how pro-life you are I promise you that abortion will never be illegal in this country. Take that to the bank! So you know what if Giuliani wants to appoint conservative judges fine but I tell all the evangelical in this country abortion will never be illegal! Go Rudy08

Let me tell you how much Texas matter that if Dems could win that state they will always be on power at the White House. Don't they wish? Again abortion will always exists no matter what judge, president, senator, etc, why even argue this? Who cares? I would never do it because I cant I am a man and I would never support it but, I have alot of stuff to worry about than who is for or against abortion it is a lost cause trust me! Let's worry about the people that want to kill us from overseas cause defeating that enemy is also being pro-life cause at the end it will save our lifes and country! Come on people let's be real! Rudy/McCain 08

Ignorant-for-Life BC, the north shore of the western third of Cuba borders the Gulf of Mexico. The complete southern shore of Cuba borders the Caribbean Sea. The northern shore of the eastern two-thirds of Cuba borders the Atlantic Ocean. The northern shore of the western one-third of Cuba borders the Gulf.

BC, I highly suggest you go back to school and begin with kindergarten.

Perhaps this will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico

Note this opening portion: "The Gulf of Mexico is the ninth largest body of water in the world. It is an ocean basin largely surrounded by the North American continent and the island of Cuba."

And from answers.com

http://www.answers.com/topic/gulf-of-mexico?cat=travel

BC, you never cease to amaze me at how completely ignorant, incompetent, and incredibly, totally and astoundingly stupid you are!!

Posted by: John D | October 17, 2007 10:58 PM

Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood" D:

From someone who claims to be a "journalist" (but has refused to ever PROVE it), you're going to believe Wikipedia, which ANYONE can edit at ANYTIME, over the fact-checking history of Encyclopaedia Britannica, that part of Cuba is in the Gulf of Mexico?

Dumb Dumb Johnnie D, you never cease to amaze me at how completely ignorant, incompetent, and incredibly, totally and astoundingly stupid you are!!