Media often report Giuliani supports abortion rights but ignore pledge to appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas
Numerous media reports have claimed that Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani "supports abortion rights" or is "pro-choice" without noting, as Media Matters for America documented, that Giuliani has repeatedly said that if elected president, he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges and has specifically pledged to use as "model appointments" Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- both of whom have declared their support for overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision finding that the Constitution protects abortion rights -- among others. In the past two days alone, reports by the Associated Press, The Economist, Slate.com , USA Today, NPR, CNN, and CBS have characterized Giuliani as a supporter of abortion rights:
- On the October 18 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, Fox News contributor and NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams said that Giuliani is "just so unusual -- he supports abortion rights, gay rights, gun control."
- On the October 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer said that Giuliani is "having serious problems winning over some Christian conservatives because he supports abortion rights and gay rights."
- On the October 18 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric said that Giuliani "would be the first Republican nominee in three decades to support abortion rights."
- An October 18 Associated Press article said that Giuliani "angers some conservatives because of his support of abortion rights and past stands on gay rights and gun control."
- An October 18 Slate article said that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) "flip-flops" were Romney's "biggest liability -- on par with Rudy Giuliani's pro-choice stance on abortion."
- An October 18 Economist article said that Giuliani "is pro-choice."
- An October 19 USA Today article said that Giuliani "supports legal abortion."
But a July 17 Giuliani campaign press release stated that Giuliani "pledg[ed] his commitment to appoint strict constructionist judges." The press release went on to state: "The Mayor, who served in President Ronald Reagan's Justice Department, pledges to use U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and current Supreme Court Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and [Samuel] Alito as model appointments." Similarly, in a letter to the editor of National Review, Giuliani campaign policy director Bill Simon stated: "[G]iven the opportunity, a President Giuliani would appoint strict-constructionist judges who will follow in the philosophical footsteps of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Scalia, and Chief Justice Roberts."
Nominating judges that Giuliani and his campaign call "strict constructionist" is also one of Giuliani's "12 Commitments."
Scalia and Thomas have both stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. In an opinion joined by Scalia, Thomas wrote that the decision in Roe was "grievously wrong" in a dissent to Stenberg v. Carhart, a decision striking down a Nebraska law that, in the majority's words, "ban[s] 'partial birth abortion.' " As Media Matters has noted, President Bush has reportedly named Scalia as his model for appointing Supreme Court justices. Roberts and Alito, Bush's two appointees to the Supreme Court, have not yet written or joined any Supreme Court opinions discussing whether Roe was correctly decided. Both Roberts and Alito joined with the majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, but neither of them joined Thomas' concurring opinion in that case, again joined by Scalia, in which Thomas said, "I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including ... Roe v. Wade ... has no basis in the Constitution.
Moreover, as Media Matters has noted, Giuliani has vacillated on the issue at various points in his career as a public official, and this year alone, has wavered on the desirability of the Supreme Court's overturning Roe v. Wade.
From the October 18 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition:
DEBORAH AMOS (NPR foreign correspondent): But, Juan, the Republicans have a leading candidate and that's Rudy Giuliani. It's just that he doesn't quite fit the classic Republican mold. Is that where the problem is?
WILLIAMS: That's exactly right. I mean, he's consistently led the national polls. Giuliani has not lost the lead to either [former Sen.] Fred Thompson [TN] or to candidates who've been in the race for some time, such as Senator John McCain [AZ] and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
Those people have not made a powerful case to the national audience of major Republican donors or Republican decision-makers and elected officials. They really also have not made the case that they can defeat any of the front-runners on the Democratic side. Giuliani makes the case consistently that he runs best against the likes of [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [NY] and [Sen.] Barack Obama [IL], as well as [former Sen.] John Edwards [NC].
But getting back to your point that the reason that the party has been slow to embrace him as the frontrunner. He's just so unusual -- he supports abortion rights, gay rights, gun control. He doesn't fit the family values-evangelical template for a Republican presidential candidate.
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the October 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is leading the Republican pack in many of the national polls, but he's having serious problems winning over some Christian conservatives because he supports abortion rights and gay rights.
I talked about that and more with Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. His latest book is entitled The Divided States of America. I asked him if he could vote for Rudy Giuliani if he gets the nomination.
From the October 18 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: Different priorities may mean a new acceptance of a new kind of GOP candidate. Current front-runner Rudy Giuliani, who would be the first Republican nominee in three decades to support abortion rights, is almost tied for first among white evangelical voters. If Giuliani succeeds, Land says the party might be over, and a third candidate, a real social conservative, could emerge.
From the October 18 Associated Press article:
As for [Sen. Sam] Brownback's [KS] anticipated departure from the Republican presidential primary race, Giuliani said he liked and respected his rival, praising him for his contribution to GOP debates.
"You know I'm an optimist, so I think I can win over some of his supporters," said Giuliani, who angers some conservatives because of his support of abortion rights and past stands on gay rights and gun control.
Giuliani was in Chicago to take part in a small round-table discussion with about a dozen elected officials and health care leaders at the University of Illinois-Chicago to discuss medical malpractice and other legal system reforms.
From the October 18 Slate article:
But ask voters about Romney's flip-flops, and they speak out loud. In a recent Des Moines Register poll, likely caucus attendees listed Romney's multiple positions as his biggest liability -- on par with Rudy Giuliani's pro-choice stance on abortion. In a Pew Center poll, only 12 percent of respondents thought of Mitt Romney when the word honest was presented to them, the lowest of the four major Republican candidates. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that only 13 percent of Republicans find Mitt Romney honest and trustworthy, also the lowest of the four major Republican candidates. A CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 15 percent of adults found Mitt Romney to be the most honest -- again, the bottom of the field.
From the October 18 Economist article:
Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign was endorsed by Rick Perry, the governor of Texas. The backing, from such a prominent conservative, should help Mr Giuliani, who is pro-choice, in his effort to win over the Republican rank-and-file during the primaries.
Iowa's Republicans set January 3rd as the date for their party caucus, earlier than had been expected. The Democrats are considering the same date to hold their vote. See article
From the October 19 USA Today article:
Christian conservatives have not coalesced behind any Republican and have objections to most of them. Rudy Giuliani supports legal abortion, a deal breaker for many. Fred Thompson and John McCain oppose a federal ban on same-sex marriage and led efforts to limit political spending by interest groups. Mitt Romney is Mormon -- troubling to some Christians -- and didn't oppose abortion until 2004.
"None of these guys are running because they're social conservatives," says Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator. "They all have problems on these issues, and most of them aren't comfortable talking about them."
This is not a make or break issue for me personally, but has, or does the media ask Giuliani how he squares his abortion rights position with his pledge regarding Supreme Court nominees? I am sure he wiggles around it like a good politician, but the people do deserve an honest response.
For him to get through the primaries he'd better figure out how to placate those in his party's base who would never vote for anyone who isn't strict pro-life?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The Jurist whom beleives the President is a Unitary Executive! Alito's daddy on the court!!
Scalia goes hunting with Cheney a couple of weeks before CREW is to argue for the minutes from a policy meeting that was held in secret. He sees no problem with that and says so!
Without an accounting of who was in attendance at this public policy meeting that turns out to be the people from big Oil, Coal, and nuclear power lobby, including the criminals from Enron, wrote the Worse Energy Iniative ever voted into law, and Scalia thinks he has the right to use his position for his friends protection like some Mafia cliche!
Thomas's biggest acheivement was with Anita Hill, and never had the credentials, or ability to be a judge in any court, least of all the Supreme Court!
Rudy would drop to his knees and do a "Larry Craig" on every Republican in America if it would make him President. That makes him the best Republican Candidate!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
His personal view is pro choice. He supports constitutionalists judges. It's easy to understand when you consider the following truth.
The common belief is that overturning Roe would outlaw abortion - it wont. It would remove the federal protection - returning the legality of abortion to the states and the local voters. It would start off legal in all states until outlawed by the voters.
Maybe he uses the mirror argument of liberals, who claim that they are personally pro-life.
abortion is a make or break issue for the republican party as it is knnown currently.
perkins and dobson and falwell and robertson set out to gain some control over the party. atwater and rove and others working in conjuntion with these cultural consersvatives enjoined in an attempt to build a permanent GOP majority. This attempt to fold the low-tax on the rich GOPers with the anti abortion crusaders has created a monster that has taken complete control over the GOP.
rudy is a perfect example. tony perkins could make him squeal like a piglet if he wanted to. rudy's position has changed, that is, his public position has changed...
count rudy as another GOPer who was disallowed to think for himself. he has to lie to a bunch of high minded cultural elitists and they have to pretend that his lies are actually not lies.
the republican partys days as we have come to know it are numbered
This is the best reason I can think of to vote Democratic, no matter who the nominees are. We don't need any more Neanderthals on the Court.
Right. Dems just appoint judges that think it's ok to jail all the black people for drug possession....but as long as they're ok with abortion, that's all that matters!
How about we don't vote for either party and actually get LIBERAL judges instead of conservatives who only differ by degree?
This is the best reason I can think of to vote Democratic, no matter who the nominees are. We don't need any more Neanderthals on the Court.
Right. It's bad enough we're saddled with morons line Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Probably the four worst justices ever to sit on the Supreme Court. Ever. And they're all there at the same time.....
A few inconvenient facts about the Democrats and the judges you just mentioned. Let's look at their appointment votes in the Senate, shall we.
I think this pretty much proves we can't trust Democrats to give us liberal justices. Another myth goes up in smoke.
well i didnt like the votes myself, esp on thomas...but democrats didnt nominnate these justices. they lacked the votes to stop alito and roberts...
i wouldnt really support voting against a justice because he is conservative or liberal. now, if he's obviously an extermist, sure.
the demos do deserve criticism for not being as obstructionist as GOPers, but thats a fine line to gauge.
it frustrates me too, though.
I just get the feeling that Rudy while leading in the polls, won't get the Republican nomination. I watched previous interviews with Tony Perkins and James Dobson and they appeared dead set on 'No Rudy' and yesterday I watched Wolf's interview with Richard Land and he echoed the 'No Rudy'. If these evangelicals are serious and I get the feeling they are, I cannot believe that Republicans will want to commit suicide by splitting the party's vote and Rudy would do exactly that.
I'm not voting for them anyway but I'm getting the feeling that unless the NoDoz starts working on Thompson, Mike Huckabee may get the nomination.
What's odd is that Mitt Romney had a more American , liberal, and common-sense approach to the abortion issue.
I was reading an account of an interview with the Mittster where he was getting hammered to talk about it, and off- the -record he explained that his religion doesn't allow him to have booze, but he's not planning on enacting prohibition.
That's always seemed the sensible position to me on issues where the country is very divided; respect your own beliefs, and let others make their choices.
Rudy seems ass-backwards, even by GOP standards- he's personally not that much of a forced-birther, but wants to appoint anti-abortion judges.He could be overcompensating for his image as a "not quite conservative enough" candidate, I guess.
I think it is more of a just plain common sense approach. I believe personally that life begins at conception, but I would not force that belief on others. I would, if asked, offer my opinion, but would leave the choice to the affected party. I do not drink, but I will socialize with those that do and will often frequent a tavern for lunch (the best sandwiches in town). I do not smoke and there I am a little more of a "smoke Nazi" as I cannot tolerance the odor and what smoke personally does to my lungs, nasal passages. But you have a choice (and often you have to live with the results of that choice). While people have rights (and not all of them are enumerated in the Constitution), we oftern forget that there are responsibilities that go with those rights. That is where I feel our society is failing many of our citizens, in teaching the responsibilities that go with the rights and freedoms we enjoy.
That's probably it. He's probably trying to play both sides of the fence. Or, from a constitution standpoint he really believes that constructionists should sit.
If I had to guess and I do, I'd say it's the first. But I'm cynical like that.
Let us remember though that abortion is not the only thing that the court decides on. Rudy, more or less, is a conservative. It would be impossible to find a judge with a carbon copy of your beliefs. He is just saying that overall, they are acceptable candidates.
This is garbage. MMFA is really ratcheting up the B.S. lately. What, are the media outlets supposed to tell Rudy's whole life story every time they mention him? Please. This story is only here to remind the democrats to vote for Hillary next year. This article has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. There is no "conservative misinformation" here. It's all crybaby whining. "Waaaa!! Fox said that McDonald's stock dropped $.02 but failed to mention that they sell hamburgers." "CNN said that Hillary supports the 'connect America' plan but failed to cite how many former acquaintences of hers are either in prison or dead." See, it makes no sense.
And yet you and the other trolls insist on hanging out here, spewing your BS, hitting the key on your laptop you have programmed to type "Why is this here?", etc.
What a sad little life you trolls have- nothing better to do than pollute the MM Website with your nonstop "This is stupid! Why is this here?" whining. I don't spend five minutes worrying about what they are posting on Littlegreenfootballs or Drudge or any other conservative sight- but then, I have a life. You conservatives who feel compelled to come here pretty much every day to tell us to stop whining really, really need to get laid, frankly.
In short: take a pill, and accept the fact that you aren't going to get us to stop talking about the conservative BS spreaders in the MSM. Sorry, but that's the way it is. No amount of "Why is this here?" and "stop whining!" posts are going to distract us from discussing the issues, ok?
Please, re-examine your sad little lives. There's more out there than this, even for trolls.
JJ,
Here's why I post 'Why is this here' comments...Its to point out the utter hypocrisy in most of MMfA's posts. They continue to claim the they don't support any political party or candidate when clearly they support Hillary by only posting negative stuff about conservative candidates. That's disingenuous as best and needs to be pointed out - again and again.
How boring would this site be if everyone agreed all the time.
So in other words because of your complete misreading of what is going on. MRC, AIM, they ONLY cover liberal media is that because of THEIR hypocrisy and trying to get Guiliani elected or is it just that you dont know what you are talking about and it sounded good when Rush said it?
I agree that this site would be boring if everyone agreed. I just wish more of the conservatives could come up with as much actual material to support their disagreements as the more liberal-leaning posters do when disagreeing with each other.
I so thoroughly agree!!
Were you part of that thread (actually a really interesting one) where everyone systematically debunked all the talking points of an arch-conservative poster? The original article was on the GOP being the party "of moral values," etc.
The vast difference in the amount of citations between the right and the left-leaning posters was truly extraordinary!
LSP, I'm not sure if I posted there, but I think I know the one you're referring to. The conservatives did provide supporting evidence, but I think it was mostly Bible verses.
Goodfella, why only Hillary? I don't get it...They publish lots of stuff defending inaccuracies against John Edwards, Barack Obama, & other Democratic candidates. If the site were specifically pro-Hillary, it would not rush out to defend candidates whose decline is in her best interests.
I totally agree. I enjoy the posts from conservative posters who disagree with MM's take and present their own views. What I can't understand is the "Why is this here?" and "stop whining!" blathering that adds nothing to the discourse. Telling someone to Shut Up is not constructive. We aren't going to Shut Up, you have no business telling us to Shut Up, and if that's all you have to say, my question is "Why are you here?"
Make an argument, defend your argument, or don't post. "Shut Up" and "Stop Whining" might have been an acceptable response on the playground back in grade school. Not here.
Seems like you're saying that when MMFA runs an article they claim is misinformation then that's fine. regardless if it's conservative and regardless if it's misinformation. But it's not okay when someone like myself says, "this wasn't even said by a conservative and it's certainly not misinformation."
Seems like tunnel vision to me. Hypocritical...take your pick but fair is fair. Another good example is the Alan Colmes clip about Imus. Last i checked Alan's not a conservative and an opinion about Imus isn't misinformation. Now you'll probably reply that Colmes is just a shill, blah, blah, blah.
This is why we point these things about. If you haven't been able to find credence with at least ONE of these postings then you sir are truly the blindest of the blind.
While I do find the "why is this here?" crowd frustrating, I don't think pure personal attacks on them are the answer.
Since we believe in evidence here, I think we owe them a clear and coherent explanation of why, in fact, this item is here. (Whether or not they choose to listen is another matter, but at least we have maintained a high standard of critical thinking and reasoned discourse.)
Bush Lies, these types of items are here not to complain about the failure to include obvious or irrelevant information in random news sources, as you suggest with your examples, but to comment on the absence of information that MMFA feels provides necessary background and would significantly change the news consumers' interpretation of the story were this information included.
In this particular instance, Guiliani's intentions in nominating Supreme Court Justices is extremely germane to the abortion question, as that issue is likely to be examined and possibly modified by a future Supreme Court. The politics and leanings of those he chooses will have a direct effect on the legal ramifications of abortion in this country. Since he has vigorously endorsed and praised certain justices (and indicated he would seek out those with philosophies like theirs when appointing new justices) whose interpretation of a key issues is so different from his stated opinions, this of necessity questions the validity and/or sincerity of his statements, especially if you believe that actions speak louder than words.
LeftSidePositive, you've got community service credit.Thanks for your patience.
So that is TODAYS hivemind talking point. That MMFA is only here to remind people to vote for Hillary without EVER TELLING ANYONE to vote for Hillary. I guess it makes sense to the Limborg set since that is what they were TOLD to believe.
I'm pro choice in the first 2 trimesters but anyone who reads Roe v. Wade, including liberals, know it is an indefensible opinion.
No we dont. YOU dont get to define reality. You cant read our minds and dont know what we think and I will take a Supreme Court decision over your worthless opinion ANY DAY.
Solon, you have no argument. Once the dittohead says "everybody knows..." or "we all know..." or "It's obvious that...", the time for critical thinking is over.At least, that's how it works when they're absorbing it from the Oxymoron.
This ones a classic; "I'm not a religious fanatic, sexually frustrated control freak, I just think, based on purely objective and intellectual reasons, the law was not established properly". Har! And it works on them.
Solon why must you always resort to insulting people. You need to check yourself. If your argument has true standing you should not have not insult people.
Really? All supreme court decisions or just those that align with your ideology? Think you got caught here. Don't worry...it was a rhetorical question.
Guilliani can be pro-choice all he wants. If he were to become President he would have a responsibility to uphold the constitution despite his own political beliefs. He believes judges like that are strict constructionist of the constitution and that is who should be a supreme court justice. Not someone who will create rights in, ignore, or deliberately misinterpret the document to serve their own political needs. His personal political views havew nothing to do with it.
ALSO, LETS GET RID OF THE MYTH THAT ABORTION IS A RIGHT. ALL THE SUPREME COURT DECISION WAS THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION TO DISALLOW IT. THAT MAKES IT A LOOPHOLE NOT A RIGHT.
Locoloki, there's nothiing in the Constitution that specifically forbids a root canal either. Do you consider that a "loophole".
Remember, you're a strict constructionist, not one of them activist judges.
Never heard of the 9th Amendment, eh? The right to privacy, to reproductive freedom, is a right reserved to the people and cannot be denied or disparaged. There's also the 4th, the right to be secure from illegal searches and seizures. To insert a law into a woman's womb and claim her baby is the ward of the state until birth, is a violation of both those laws. It's also rape.
Rape? That is a stretch.
I am not debating the ethics of abortion I am saying that it is not an inherent right.
Rape is any forced sexual act on an unwilling subject. So trying to jam a law up some woman's womb and demand she breed for the government is rape. Which is a violation of personal sovereignty and an illegal seizure of her personal property, one of which is covered under the 9th, the other under the 4th. So yes, abortion is a RIGHT of all women.
A baby is not property. Again not arguing for or against abortion I am saying it is not a right it is something that a decision was never officially made on. There is no law for or against abortion.
The government didn't demand that she breed. Usually, she decides that for herself, no?
It's amazing that people like you give ALL the rights of the constitution to the woman but none to the father or the baby.
The 9th Amendement does not mention reporductive rights. One could argue that it includes constitutional protection onto unborn children.
The 4th Amendment has no place in an abortion argument. Except in cases of rape/molestation the woman chose to engage in the act of sex which in turn resulted into the pregnancy. One could argue that when she did so she gave de-facto permission and control of that part of her body to her unborn child.
So, if you buy a car are you giving de facto permission for it to crash?
If you choose to eat at a restaurant are you giving de facto permission to waiters to poison your food?
If you renovate your house are you giving de facto permission to anyone who may happen to see it to crash on your couch?
By taking any of the above actions (or by having sex), you are not acting specifically in order to bring about unintended consequences (that's why they're UNintended!). Moreover, it is absurd to believe that when an unintended consequence occurs, it should run its course in such a way that is detrimental to all concerned, and just because it happened does not mean it was deserved.
But with sex you have direct control. A woman or man can be fixed so they cannot have children. You do not need to have sex to survive. In fact the only true purpose of sex is to procreate. So by doing it you are accepting the possible consequence of pregnancy.
Again you keep forgetting you keep forgetting about the life created by the choice to have sex. It is an innocent in all of the decision making and does not deserve the punishment bestowed on it by the people who made the decision.
A woman chooses to have sex and gets pregnant it is her own fault, no one else. (except in rape/molestation) All I am saying is one could argue that a woman gives the child the permission.
So, if you buy a car are you giving de facto permission for it to crash?
If you choose to eat at a restaurant are you giving de facto permission to waiters to poison your food?
If you renovate your house are you giving de facto permission to anyone who may happen to see it to crash on your couch?
You have de facto understanding that it might crash and thus, you know you should have insurance.
The waiter analogy is too bad to reply to. Same with the house analogy. Do you understand how to make a comparison?
many liberals seem to hate the idea of personal responsibility. Such a position benefits no one or society in the long run.
Oh please, "strict constructionist" is RW code for anti-abortion and everyone know it.
Where in the Constitution does it give artificial economic constructions, ie. corporations, the same rights and priveliges as actual living breathing citizens? And yet I've never heard any of these so-called "strict constructionists" argue against that particular Supreme Court decision.
This is the wingnut code regarding judges- "activist" judges are judges that make decisions they don't like and "strict constructionist" or "originalists" are judges who make decisions they do like. It has nothing to do with actual legal philosophies and everything to do with political agendas.
I argue against that decision. I didn't say the current judges were strict constructionist I said Rudy believes they are.
It is a fact that there are judges out there that make decisions based on political motives not the law nor what the constitution actually says.