Giuliani-Appointed Judges Tend to Lean to the Left

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793109/posts

[Democratic Hawk]

We all know Giuliani must play a blinding game of deception if he is to win the Republican nomination

Sooner or later, the hounds are going to tear this fox apart

Dave

[HardRCafé]

We all know Giuliani must play a blinding game of deception if he is to win the Republican nomination

Right, or else that one super-strong social ultra-Conservative so popular with the base will beat him to a pulp.

What is his name again?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

We all know Giuliani must play a blinding game of deception if he is to win the Republican nomination

Right, or else that one super-strong social ultra-Conservative so popular with the base will beat him to a pulp.

What is his name again?

LOL! 

Also, the Mayor of NYC doesn't appoint any federal judges.  Rudy appointed crime-fighters to state-level courts, I see nothing wrong with that.

[Sam Spade]

Much ado about nothing.  Here's why:

As I recall, the Commission system was set up by Ed Koch.  Basically, as mayor you pick judges and the Commission must approve.  Of course, he could have gotten rid of the system or chosen to pick against the system, but that would gain him nothing but ill will and disapproval.  Also, it's not like there are conservative jurists all over NYC who want these jobs mainly because they are the dregs of the judicial profession.

Which gets me to point two:  What do these judges do?  They basically oversee jury trials concerning criminal issues (like whether the defendant committed arson or not) or family court issues (like whether husband beat up wife or girlfriend, etc.)  Their rulings have no precedential value.  And this is the most important point of all.

When we talk about judicial nomination fights, the only courts Democrats or Republicans are concerned about nominating Republicans or Democrats are those which set judicial precedent, ie, the Appeals courts and the US Supreme Court.  At the trial court level, you are concerned about hiring the most competent lawyer or judge only.

Something which is little known by most people, but which reflects this concern, are federal judicial appointments to the District Court level, the trial court level of the federal judiciary.  In those appointments, there's an agreement that the President may appoint whomever the Senators or legislative members want for that position.  So, Bush goes around all the time nominating Democrats to District Court level positions because they don't set precedent.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Much ado about nothing.  Here's why:

Which gets me to point two:  What do these judges do?  They basically oversee jury trials concerning criminal issues (like whether the defendant committed arson or not) or family court issues (like whether husband beat up wife or girlfriend, etc.)  Their rulings have no precedential value.  And this is the most important point of all.

Sorry Sam, but you're wrong!

Most matters that come before these judges do NOT involve juries.

Further, decisions of these judges adversely impact real people, frequently those without sufficent financial resources to appeal the incorrect ruling of a liberal judge.

Finally, Jferm correctly contrasts Giuliani's deeds with his current words.

BTW, before it went out of business, Giuliani was the nominee for Mayor of the Liberal party.

[Democratic Hawk]

We all know Giuliani must play a blinding game of deception if he is to win the Republican nomination

Right, or else that one super-strong social ultra-Conservative so popular with the base will beat him to a pulp.

What is his name again?

Early days but given time its possible that a more bona fide social conservative, who does stand a chance of being elected, will emerge

Giuliani is no social conservative; while the base has every reason to be cynical about Romney and many loathe McCain

There is certainly a void to fill as far as the Republican bench goes. As of now, I don't see any of the more bona fide conservatives thus far declared filling it but it doesn't follow that nobody, given time, won't. Who that will be remains to be seen

Giuliani is ahead 1) because McCain, the early favorite, is faltering and 2) there is that, almost romanticised, heroic persona of him in the wake of 9/11. Were he not Mayor of New York there and then, he'd not even have a sniff at the Republican nomination let alone a good shot at it

As of now, Giuliani appears to be consolidating his lead on McCain but when all comes to all is Giuliani so 'special', so unique, that he can avoid the fate that usually awaits front-runners?

Dave