Much has been made over Rudy Giuliani's so-called switch on abortion. However, there is nothing inconsistent with being pro-choice but favoring judges who favor a certain interpretation of the Constitution. I happen to be pro-choice and a supporter of Roe v. Wade but I still believe Justice Scalia is a skilled judge worthy of being on the Supreme Court. I believe one's viewpoint on Roe v. Wade, should not be used to disqualify or qualify that justice for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Yes, Giuliani is being somewhat disingenuous in his support of "strict constructionist" judges which has become almost a code term, but that does not mean his position on Roe v. Wade has changed. As the article points out, he has always taken the Catholic approach to abortion, who has been pro-choice but not enthusiastically so.

I would also just interject that the term "strict constructionist" is overused. I am not sure Justice Roberts, who gives considerably more weight to legislative history than Scalia is an originalist or a strict constructionalist in the mode of Scalia.