I’m one of the few people who doesn’t have strong opinions about abortion. I have opinions (I’d like to see a world in which we have none, but I’m not sure that the government should be involved), but no candidate’s position on it is going to be a deal breaker for me, either way. But, as I said, I’m one of the few, and to many people it matters a lot, which is one of Rudy Giuliani’s biggest problems. As it happens, my biggest problem with him is his apparent indifference to the Second Amendment.

But for those to whom abortion is a deal breaker, I ask: what does a president have to do with abortion? What difference does it make what he thinks about the issue?

Well, the obvious rejoinder, from both pro and anti whatever, is that he appoints Supreme Court justices.

OK. Well, here’s the thing. I know that it’s tough to do for a lot of people–it actually requires some sophisticated thought, but one has to divorce Supreme Court decisions from their real-world consequences. That is, the court doesn’t rule on whether or not things are good ideas, or even moral. They (at least in theory) rule on whether or not they follow the law, and are in accordance with the Constitution. It is about process, not result.

I know that this will be hard to comprehend, but it is quite possible to believe that abortion is wonderful, that every woman should have at least one, and still believe that Roe v. Wade was a judicial travesty. Similarly, one could believe that abortion is an ongoing genocide, and think Roe great, if one is inclined to want judges to find imaginary rights in the document. My position is that, regardless of one’s position on abortion (including mine) that it was a mess. I also agree with the notion that it is something that should be decided politically, and that many legislators on both sides were relieved when the Court made up a new law out of whole cloth, because it relieved them of the responsibility of having to make any decisions on it, for which they might be held politically accountable.

If I were Rudy, I would know that there would be no way to do a “conversion” against abortion (as Romney apparently has)–he’s just got too much of a track record the other way, and a recent one.

But he could make the following statement, and it would make perfect sense (at least to people who have followed my argument so far):

“I have stated a personal belief in a woman’s right to choose. But I also have a strong belief in judges who follow the Constitution. I admire George Bush’s choice of Supreme Court judges–Roberts and Alito. I wish that I’d made them myself, and I hope to have an opportunity to make similar, and (if that’s possible) even better ones, who will interpret the Constitution in the manner intended, and not make new law out of old parchment, no matter how worthy the goal. While I personally favor a woman’s right to choose, I think that Roe v. Wade was a mistake, and that this should be a matter for the states to determine. You can be sure that, if elected, this will be the criterion that I use to select judicial nominees, rather than a desire for a particular outcome that I happen to personally favor.”

In fact, if he made a statement like this, I think that he could win over not only the pro-life crowd, but also those opposed to his views on gun control. And it would not be in any way inconsistent with any previous statements on his part.

It would not only get him off the hook for many of his previous positions, but it would provide a valuable public lesson on the nature and purpose of the judiciary, and one that seems to be badly needed.

[Update on Saturday morning]

I said in comments that Rudy doesn’t have a track record in appointing judges, but it turns out that he does:

HH: You know, you picked up Ted Olson