A Loose Construction Of Vitter's Endorsement

Louisiana’s David Vitter, a major Southern conservative, became the first Senator to endorse the presidential campaign of ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani today.

Standing before a throng of national press in DC, Vitter said he was convinced that Giuliani “would appoint the best federal judges of all the major candidates.” He said that Giuliani’s performance as mayor of New York “proved” that “he is a conservative reformer who can make government work using conservative economic policy.” He allowed that he disagreed with Giuliani “on some very significant social issues.”

Said Vitter: “These are really important matters to me and many people I represent. But after numerous personal meetings with him, it is very clear to me that he is not running for President to advance any liberal social agenda.”

We asked Vitter what “a liberal social agenda” was, and he said it included "social issues."

Vitter’s endorsement raises an interesting point: picking the right kind of judges matters for policy outcomes. Despite pleas to the contrary, it doesn't just mean an approach to judging. Vitter said there was “no litmus test” in the Republican Party. Well, there is certainly a strong correspondence between calling oneself a “strict constructionist” in politics and believing that Roe should be overturned or believing that Lawrence V. Texas was a bad decision. [MARC AMBINDER]

(Caveats: This correspondence holds true more for social issues than for economic issues. And within the legal professional itself, it often breaks down. Many "strict constructionists" don't believe these things, but their contributions to the public debate are generally stifled by the binary nature of our politics.)

So Vitter, in endorsing Giuliani’s judicial philosophy, has become convinced that Rudy would appoint anti-Roe judges -- or judges whose decisions would secure the outcomes that Vitter believes are right and good.

Just what does Rudy tell folks like Vitter in these private meetings? Is he asked about taxpayer funding for abortion? Stem cell research? Prayer in school? The employment non-discrimination act? Does not "advancing" the "liberal social agenda" mean that Giuliani has promised not to sign legislation that "advances" the non-conservative outcome on these issues?

Let’s give Giuliani his due: having Vitter will help whip support among Southern conservatives, and qualifies, to us at least, as a major and important endorsement.

A related footnote: Giuliani voiced his tenative support this morning for last week's court decision overturning the DC gun ban. Giuliani said that a brief skim of the highlights of the decision convinced him that it got the 2nd amendment law right. In Rudy's mind, the amendment ought to allow individuals to own guns subject to "reasonable" restrictions. That's his adjective. Many strict constructionists don't believe that the 2nd amendment authorized such restrictions. Others, pointing to the "well-regulated militia" clause, do. And calling yourself a strict constructionist with regards to the 2nd amendment translates in modern American politese to the latter view, and not Rudy's view.