Family's Perkins: Giuliani endorsements 'appalling'

by Mark Silva

Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council, one of the leading political organizations pursuing a Christian conservative agenda.

Rudy Giuliani is the front-running Republican candidate for president. He addressed the Family Research Council's recent "Values-Voter Summit'' in Washington and promisied, if he is elected president, to appoint strict judges who will interpret the law, not attempt to write it.

"As the Republican presidential primaries approach early next year, a chorus of voices for former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is consistently telling the public that he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the federal bench,'' Perkins writes. "Media pundits like Sean Hannity brandish the phrase as if it were a conclusive argument for the acceptability of Giuliani's campaign to "pro-life" Americans.

"The Rev. Pat Robertson apparently agrees,'' he writes, noting Giuliani's endorsement by the founder of the Christian Coalition. "But the most important man in the room - Giuliani himself - doesn't,'' Perkins writes, citing his own personal information on the subject and calling it "appalling to see social conservatives embrace Giuliani's camapign:"

"I know this because I asked him in person on Oct. 20, when he affirmed his view that a strict constructionist judge could uphold Roe v. Wade because of legal precedent,'' Perkins writes.

"To his credit (he is more consistent than some of his proponents are), he stood by the remarks he made last May at the GOP presidential debate at the Reagan library.

"Those remarks were very clear.

"Giuliani said that it would be "OK" with him if a Supreme Court judge upheld Roe on strict constructionist grounds.

"It would be OK to repeal it," he said, adding: "It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent."

"This quotation has been cited, with good reason, by many Giuliani critics who are rightly concerned that, as president, it licenses him to appoint any number of judicial candidates who will leave Roe v. Wade exactly as it is.

I"n other contexts since the May debate, he has stood by the view that strict constructionism can coexist with Roe.

"Strict constructionists," he has said, "can look at it [Roe] and say, it has been the law for this period of time, therefore we can respect the precedent."

"The argument that Roe has been the law for a period of 35 years this coming January is of dubious value in determining whether it should stand.

"The Supreme Court of the United States does not routinely make massive constitutional errors, but when it has done so, the result has occasionally stood for decades because of the sheer difficulty of correcting even enormous judicial mistakes.

"The Supreme Court held that Dred Scott was not a "person" for constitutional purposes in 1857, that the states were free to impose segregation in public accommodations in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 and that the states were not free to pass regulations on industry in Lochner v. New York in 1905.

"None of these errors was reversed easily.

"Plessy survived for 58 years, and the practices it ratified and reinforced in school segregation and marriage law stood even longer.

"The point, however, is not just to argue that Giuliani is making a weak case in defense of Roe v. Wade or its successors.

"Rather, the point is that he is adamant that his public and oft-repeated language on judicial restraint is consistent with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court who will uphold Roe and its progeny.

"That is why it is all the more appalling to see social conservative leaders embrace Giuliani's campaign.

"He is the only one of the current contenders to view Roe v. Wade in this way.

"Many of his supporters are using the language of "strict constructionism" to defend their dubious decision and to urge "pro-life" Americans to join them.

"They are making the spurious argument that only judicial appointments matter.

'If that were true, they should at least ask themselves the question, "What would an avowedly 'pro-choice' Republican president do if the Congress of the United States were to present him with the Freedom of Choice Act?"

"FOCA has been repeatedly introduced in Congress, and it would wipe out even existing state laws, few as they are, on abortion.

"If nothing else, voters should hold the pundits and the endorsers to account when they make more of a candidate's stance than the substance warrants.

"During his appearance on the "Hannity & Colmes" program last week, Robertson explained his endorsement of the "pro-choice" Rudy by saying, "Well, there are various ways to protect life, ... and I think the most important one is to see that the appropriate judges are in the Supreme Court and in the circuit courts and the district courts."

"Picking up on that thread, Hannity told Robertson: "The biggest area where a president can have an impact on the issue of abortion is in the type of justices that they will appoint to the court and the strict constructionists."

"We agree.

"The most important thing a president can do is pick judges who are "strict constructionists."

"For us and for most Americans, those words mean that decisions like Roe cannot stand.

"It is precisely on this point that Rudy Giuliani dissents, and it's a fact that every "pro-life" American should know and that every "pro-life" commentator should frankly admit.''