In Thursday’s GOP presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, Mayor Giuliani bobbled the snap when asked about the infamous 1973 decision that legalized abortion by judicial fiat.

Hizzoner, who has made his support for “strict constructionists” on the Court his olive branch to the right, said “It would be OK to repeal. It would be also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent,” when asked his position on Roe.

Mr. Mayor, you’ve read the Constitution.  You know better.  You could have defined an intellectually (if not morally) defensible position on abortion — a belief that it is a convenience that should be afforded to women, but one that is no where mentioned in the founding document and a procedure that is subject to the will of the people in the various states.

There are two things under heavy assault in America:  the unborn and federalism.  Polite people may disagree about the legal status of the former, but anyone with respect for the Constitution must be like-minded on respect for the latter.  The Mayor’s answer last evening demonstrated he holds neither in high regard.

Update:  ConfirmThem sez, “wrong answer“.

Here’s what is wrong with that answer: It makes the judge, or the court, into the arbiter, rather than the Constitution itself as the arbiter. It also is a mess of logic. If “the court has to make that decision, and then the country can deal with it,” then it is an absolute non sequitur to say that “states could make their own decisions.” He is saying that it is “okay” for the courts to repeal or NOT to repeal Roe, meaning the judges are all-knowing, rather than that the judges are bound by the Constitution, but in the next breath he says the states should decide, which could happen ONLY if the courts DO repeal Roe.

In short, the mayor’s answer shows either that he doesn’t know what he is talking about, or else that he believes the fundamentally unconservative notion that judges are supposed to act as Solomonic or perhaps Platonic tribunes of ultimate wisdom rather than as constitutional officers. Either way, the answer was horrendous.