Giuliani on judges: Not encouraging

Ben Smith at The Politico reports on that site’s in-depth examination of Rudy Giuliani’s judicial appointees, which is an issue extremely important to conservatives whose votes he’d love to win. What was found is not encouraging (emphasis added):

When Rudy Giuliani faces Republicans concerned about his support of gay rights and legal abortion, he reassures them that he is a conservative on the decisions that matter most.

“I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am,” he told South Carolina Republicans last month. “Those are the kinds of justices I would appoint — Scalia, Alito and Roberts.”

But most of Giuliani’s judicial appointments during his eight years as mayor of New York were hardly in the model of Chief Justice John Roberts or Samuel Alito — much less aggressive conservatives in the mold of Antonin Scalia.

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

Cumulatively, Giuilani’s record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state’s leading abortion-rights group. “They were decent, moderate people,” she said.

“I don’t think he was looking for someone who was particularly conservative,” added Barry Kamins, a Democrat who chaired the panel of the Bar Association of the City of New York, which reviewed Giuliani’s appointments. “He picked a variety from both sides of the spectrum. They were qualified, even-tempered, academically strong.”

Read the rest here.

In other Giuliani-related news, Time reports that he is polling well ahead of Senator McCain, and Bill Sammon at The Examiner has an article posted about questions candidate Giuliani will likely have to deal with regarding his avoiding the draft during Vietnam.

Chris says:

March 1, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Hmm. Ok, maybe I’ll reconsider. Don’t much care on the social issues, but if the judges aren’t of the Scalia/Thomas mold, then we have a problem. Can’t win too many wars with lib activist judges countering every common sense move you make. I’ll watch and see if someone confronts on that and see his response. I can almost gaurantee that McCain will bring it up.

The draft thing will not resonate. Didn’t with Clinton. Try as they did, it didn’t with Bush. ‘Nam is not going to be an issue ever again. Ditto “youthful” drug use. Don’t know if that’s bad or good or indifferent, but that seems to be the trend to me.

stoo says:

March 1, 2007 at 8:16 pm

I’m not a particular supporter of Mr. Giuliani, but I wonder at the pool of possible judges he had to work with, as a mayor of one of the leftest cities on this continent.

Bachbone says:

March 1, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Guiliani is even less conservative than Pres. Bush. I hope he doesn’t get the GOP nomination. I’m sick and tired of voting for the lesser of evils.

TedintheShed says:

March 2, 2007 at 7:15 am

Guiliani is about the only person out there I would vote for. McCain was supported by Soros in the 2000 primaries, so he is forever tainted in my mind.

Those judges he appointed were indeed for New York lower courts- is there such thing as a conservative judge in New York City?

All that aside, what we need now is a Reagan-esque leader as President. I think Guiliani has that quality far and above any other candidate out there.

Remeber, Reagan was considered “liberal” by his party too.

Leslie says:

March 2, 2007 at 9:56 am

As a native of New York City, and longtime observer of its political scene, I’m puzzled by this whole thing. I confess that until just now, I had been unaware that the mayor had any say in judicial appointments to state courts.

But you all may be quite sure that nine out of 10 judges appointed from New York City would be Democrats. That is just how it is. The GOP usually goes along in return for favors. Although considering the dwindling population of New York City Republicans (for all I know there are more Libertarians now), I am not entirely sure what favors are supplied them.

READ ON TO LEARN MORE ABOUT NEW YORK STATE COURTS (or not)

Terminology in New York State courts is confusing. The trial courts are divided into “Criminal” court, which tries misdemeanors, and “Supreme” court, which tries felonies. Among the latter are civil- and criminal-division judges. These are called “justices.” They are appointed by the political party bosses. Well, actually, they are “elected,” except when voters go to the polls they will find that the list under the Democratic and Republican columns are most often identical.

Above that there is the Appellate division, which, as you would suppose, handles the appeals. And above that is the Court of Appeals, a seven-member body that acts as the Supreme Court of New York State. (Curiously, while the trial judges in Supreme Court, are called Justices, the judges on the Court of Appeals are called, well, Judges. The Chief Judge is Judith Kaye.)

They are appointed by the Governor for 10-year terms, and their appointments can be renewed, although there is mandatory retirement at age 70. The Governor must choose from among a list provided him by a screening committee.

But again, precisely which judicial appointments Rudy could have been involved in, I cannot say.