As TalkLeft noted here, Rudy Giuliani has feverishly promised, if elected, to appoint "strict constructionist" judges in the mold of Justice Scalia. Yesterday he went so far as to argue that judges who are not "strict constructionists" threaten American democracy.

There are at least a couple of serious flaws in Giuliani's argument. First, Justice Scalia disagrees with him. From Justice Scalia's writings:

I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be.... A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.

Second, adherents to the "strict constructionist" philosophy do not typically believe that the Constitution protects the right to make a decision about abortion without unwarranted governmental interference. So how does Giuliani reconcile his desire for "strict constructionist" judges with his belief that the Constitution protects that right? He doesn't.

He was asked at the news conference to explain how he could support reproductive rights but at the same time promise to install justices whose strict constructionist views could threaten the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to an abortion.

He never answered directly.