I’m not wild about any of the Republican candidates who have thus far thrown their hat into the 2008 Presidential ring. But of the ones that are out there, the one that comes the closest to getting me excited is Rudy Giuliani.

Long-time readers will also know that I care deeply about the Supreme Court. In addition to writing over at Confirm Them — less these days than in the past — I had the privilege of playing a small part in efforts to support Chief Justice Roberts’s confirmation.

Put those two interests together and an e-mail from Patrick Ruffini the other day caught my attention. (Patrick works as a consultant for the Mayor’s campaign.)

“Mayor Giuliani on Judges” was the subject line. The substance was from a Giuliani speech to the South Carolina Republican Party’s Executive Committee:

On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I’m a lawyer. I’ve argued cases in the Supreme Court. I’ve argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that’s part of our freedom and when that’s taken away from you that’s terrible. President Bush has the great model because I think as the President he did appointed some really good ones and both of them are former colleagues of mine - Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia is a former colleague of mine. Somebody that … I think Chief Justice Roberts is a great chief justice and he’s young and he can have a long career and that’s probably the reason the President and Vice President chose him. I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint – Scalia, Alito and Roberts. If you can find anybody as good as that, you are very, very fortunate.

Amen, Mr. Mayor. Glad you’re in the right place.

I look forward to hearing from the other candidates on this issue. And, as far as me and a lot of other conservatives are concerned, they speak out on this issue quickly enough.

UPDATE: Captain Ed beat me by a week and adds a few editorial reflections that are worth contemplating.

Jim: Here’s the fun question that may louse up John McCain’s presidential dreams: What potential Supreme Court justice would uphold McCain-Feingold but overturn Roe v. Wade?

It’s not impossible to find a judge that would find dramatic restrictions on your right to use your money to spread a political message before an election to be constitutional AND simultaneously not see some eminating penumbra that establishes a Constitutional right to an abortion… but it seems difficult.

Anyway, as for Rudy… the great Noemie Emery writes a fascinating profile of the Big Three — McCain, Romney, and Giuliani. Knowing that some people aren’t as big a fan of them as I am, I’d love to hear some reaction.

The possibility (probability?) of one of the Big Three winning the Republican nomination pleases me a bit, in the sense that I think during the Bush era, conservatism has become too associated with Southern-ism or rural-ism. It’s not that I don’t like the South or rural areas (although I’m an urbanite, and oppose Confedera-philia); it’s that those cultural markers started becoming stand-ins for actual conservative ideas. George Allen going on and on about his cowboy boots and chewing tobacco grated on me, because there’s nothing inherently conservative about what you wear or what you chew. (Hear that, Crunchy Cons?)

A very young Jonah Goldberg had this nailed way back in 1996:

So now that conservatives have overrun the capital, the animal spirits within the movement have set out to create their own “conservative culture.” In The Weekly Standard one writer actually called for a “conservative bohemia,” complete with a dress code of button-down shirts and fedoras, and the imperative that we all smoke, surprise, cigars.

It is another thing to tell a new generation of conservatives, male and female, that picking up fads like cigar smoking makes you a conservative. Conservatism is supposed to be more mature than that. Conservatism must continue to argue for the conviction that some truths cannot be deconstructed, don’t simply come in and out of style, and are more substantial than a puff of smoke.

Now - I would love it if fedoras and button-down shirts and cigars remained the definition of hip, along with martinis, whiskey and bourbon, microbrews, thick steaks, poker games, and stockings and garters (er, on other people, specifically, women people). But those are matters of taste, not politics. If you’re a liberal and you like those things, great, we ought to hang out. Particularly if you’re a woman person who looks good in stockings and garters.

Boy, did I meander off topic. Anyway, to sum up — the GOP may nominate a non-Southern, non-traditional conservative as its nominee in 2008, and I’m just fine with that.

Cam: Am I the only one who’d like this blog to focus more on stockings and garters and less on Giuliani?