In a comment on my post earlier today about Rudy Giuliani’s evolving and complicated position on abortion, Hunter Baker of RedState.com fame says that Rudy is a goner, in his book:
He has said something else that makes all this less okay. I’ve seen a statement where he says it would be "OK" if a "strict constructionist" were to leave Roe in place.
Leaving aside the problem that it is impossible to put strict constructionist and leaving Roe in place in the same sentence without cognitive dissonance, I do not view this to be a positive development.
Rudy is out for me right now.
The idea that Rudy would seek out Supreme Court nominees who are "strict constructionists" who support keeping Roe v. Wade in places strikes me as extremely weaselly and not one that projects integrity and philosophical consistency. If we add that factor to our chart of Rudy’s abortion logic, his position looks even more convoluted and devious:
- I am personally very strongly opposed to abortion.
- I enthusiastically support the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision to remove voters’ rights to decide whether to allow abortions in their respective states or otherwise to regulate the practice in any effective way.
- As President, I would appoint "strict constructionist" judges, which most people think are the type who will probably overturn Roe v. Wade.
- It will be "OK" with me if they do that.
- But not all strict constructionist judges want to overturn Roe v. Wade, at least by my definition of the term.
- So you have no way of knowing which way my nominees would move the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion.
- Trust me to do the right thing—remember how decisive and valiant I looked after 9/11.
Hunter Baker is a classic social conservative, and his opinion on these subjects carries a lot of weight with me. My doubt about Rudy’s ability to woo social conservative Republicans (something of a redundancy, perhaps?)—already expressed several times on this site and reiterated this morning—just increased a notch or two.