Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
At this point I hope he does somehow make it through the primary.



Thanks for the endorsement. Welcome, aboard, Chris.

Unfortunately, what the blog you cited intentionally ommitted included the following:

    most of the appointees were Democrats [but] That is not a surprise in New York, an overwhelmingly Democratic city. Many also had prosecutorial experience, which matched the mayor's crime-fighting priorities at the time.

    "He was guided by concerns of competence, and he tended to favor what through a New York prism would be called 'law and order,' meaning an enlightened prosecutorial crowd," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers.

    He called it "nonsense" to cite municipal judges, who deal with misdemeanors and small claims, as predictive of how a candidate would approach appointments to the Supreme Court.

    Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who recently threw his support behind Giuliani, said the controversy was insignificant. Olson said Giuliani, as associate attorney general in the Reagan administration, was involved in high-level discussions about judicial appointments and other issues on a day-to-day basis. Olson described the process as a "collaborative effort" that involved Olson himself, then-Atty. Gen. William French Smith, his chief of staff Kenneth W. Starr and others.

    Charles G. Moerdler, a member of a panel that reviewed judicial candidates during Giuliani's tenure, said Giuliani's appointments were based on merit.


Also, while not specifically noted by the Times, it should be remembered that, as Mayor, Giuliani was limited to only those candidates pre-screened by the judicial selection panel. That panel, being located in NYC, tended to favor (due to the pool of lawyers in the city, if nothing else) moderate to liberal candidates. So Rudy was appointing the best of a generally liberal bunch.