COMMITMENT TO NOMINATE
Re: Jennifer Rubin's Why Judges
Matter:
Jennifer Rubin writes of "[Giuliani's] commitment to nominate conservative judges," but what are conservative voters to put more weight on, a "commitment to nominate" or an actual record of nominating? The evidence of the latter, or more accurately lack thereof, is fairly well documented in Politico.com's Ben Smith's "Giuliani Judges Lean Left."
Almost all of the literature on Mayor Giuliani's record indicates that he is rock solid on effectively protecting the public against crime, and doing so by using existing law to full advantage. All of the reduction during his term of the NYC murder rate, from over 2,000 per year to just over 600, was done without one new "gun control" law. It is reasonable to infer that President Giuliani would put the same effort into effectively protecting the country against international dangers, and again doing so by using existing law to full advantage. The same laws in the hands of Democrats, municipal and national, resulted in 2,000 New Yorkers murdered each year, and the willful failure to take the fight to the enemy resulting in the 3,000 New Yorkers dying in the WTC attacks.
But it is not sufficient to nominate judges who will enforce the
law, if that means enforcing precedent, because there is a record
of bad precedent dating back to the Warren Court, and it will take
decades of the most conservative judges in every respect to restore
the law to some semblance of original constitutional intention. And
there is no evidence that a President Giuliani has any ambition to
do that. "Commitment to nominate" is not evidence.
-- Frank Natoli
Newton, New Jersey
Ms. Rubin writes to win over conservatives, who are still thinking,
"None of the above." Rudy Giuliani, considered too liberal
on some core social issues, has revealed his choices for the
judiciary. Ms. Rubin is rather insightful. The grass root
supporters can be won over with a promise of a "big bone,"
especially one that is chuck full of red meat. Unless the
currents of momentum change directions before the autumn of 2008, a
Republican president is going to have face down a hostile (i.e.,
Democratic) Congress in all areas of policy, especially
appointments to the bench. Not all presidents have the courage to
spend "political capital" on this endeavor. Would Da Mayor of
America be willing to fight for what he believes in? Even a popular
President Reagan folded under pressure when his nominee was
"Borked." While the Boy President was sometimes (rightfully) called
"The Teflon President" because nothing stuck to him, President
Giuliani might be earn the appellation of "The Iron Frying Pan
President": sure, lots of dirt will stick, but a frying pan is too
hard to be broken down by dirt. Giuliani will never be the
"prettiest" president, but like an iron pan, he will be one of the
hardest. In these tempestuous times, strong beats pretty every
time.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
I find Jennifer Rubin's editorial laughable and unimaginative -- did she plagiarize from a GOP "how to scare Americans" playbook? The truth is, Republicans want "strict constructionists" AKA "Judges who kiss the butts of radical conservatives" appointed to bench because they know EXACTLY how they will rule -- they will rule however James Dobson, Tony Perkins and the rest of the Radical American Taliban tell them to rule. It's the pot calling the kettle black to say that any judgment in favor of a more Liberal (you know PROGRESSIVE) situation is "legislation from the bench," but that any judgment for a more Conservative (staying the norm or going backwards) policy is "calling it as the law says."
It appears that Jennifer Rubin has gone through Karl Rove's "mind-wipe" school of Conservatism.
Thanks!
-- Bradley Shropshire
Vice President of Collections Management
Hudson & Keyse, L.L.C.
Painesville, Ohio
Ms. Rubin is right on the mark. We had three couples visit for a
cookout this weekend. All six are anti-abortion conservatives. Four
derive their positions from Catholic theology. All are very
sympathetic to a Giuliani candidacy. Playing "devil's advocate," I
probed why, given their views on abortion. Justification: he would
appoint conservative justices!
-- Paul
HOW IT BURNS
Re: Iain Murray & Ivan Osorio's The War
Over The War:
I am absolutely ecstatic that a liberal icon like Ken Burns, and a liberal bastion like PBS are being flamed by such liberal "I am offended" groups for committing a liberal no no. Every time a liberal individual or group is skewered by their own ideology's agenda, I want to run and shout and do a little Snoopy dance of joy. I can only cry, "More, more!!!!"
Did you know that not a single Union soldier died during our American Civil War? Yep, ask Ken Burns. If you page through his book that came out at the same time as his documentary movie on that conflict, of all the pictures of dead soldiers on the battlefield, every one, 100%, are of Confederate soldiers. Similarly, every picture of brutal, vicious prisoner of war camps portrays Confederate hellholes. I can only conclude that any prisoner of war camps that may have been operated by the Union were sympathetic, humane, retreats that concentrated on winning the hearts and minds of the Rebels by supreme niceness.
Go ahead, Ken Burns, suffer. See what it feels like to endure
the character attack avalanche that Conservatives know all too well
from the Left that you are a proud, elite member of. You made your
bed, now wallow in it.
-- Ken Shreve
New Hampshire
In their discussion of the Ken Burns documentary on WW II and the outcry by "Hispanics," Iain Murray & Ivan Osorio wrote, "Private broadcasters don't get PBS-style government funding, but, by arguing that they broadcast on 'the public's airwaves,' politicians can abrogate themselves the power to scrutinize every documentary, sitcom, and reality show."
The definition of the word "abrogate" is, "To annul, cancel
repeal or destroy." The word that these gentlemen meant to use was
"arrogate," which means, "To take or claim for oneself without
right; appropriate."
-- W. B. Heffernan, Jr.