Saturday, February 18, 2012

The newest meme about the elections is SCOTUS

Or I've been seeing it a little more anyway.
I saw it on a blog that I can't remember the other day where he quoted someone as saying we *HAVE* to support Willard because otherwise Obama will fill the Supreme Court with Liberal Judges.

I mentioned in my comments that I doubted he would do much better than Himself that way, but we need to check his record.
I just did after something else nudged me.

When Mittens was the Governor of Mass., he appointed Liberals and Democrats to the Bench.

Legal analysts say candidate Romney is different from Gov. Romney.
Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romney’s appointments were constitutional “living document” poster children.
“Many of Romney’s appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different?” Barber asked rhetorically.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Mitt Romney’s actions as governor scream from the rooftops that he cannot be trusted with this most important of presidential responsibilities.”
Barber cites two specific examples of Romney’s radical appointments.
“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney not only failed in this regard, he appointed a number of very liberal, if not radical, ‘living, breathing’-minded judges to the bench,” Barber said.
“Two that come to mind were extreme homosexualists Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany,” he said. “They both had a long history of pro-gay activism, yet Romney didn’t hesitate to put them on the bench.”
“These are people who outrageously believe the postmodern notion that newfangled ‘gay rights’ trump our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights,” he said.

~But I'm sure he's had time to flop~

“Romney did focus on two criteria: their legal experience and whether they would be tough on crime. In other words, the nominee could be a gay activist or a pro-big government, pro-quota, pro-gun control Democrat Party hack who detests every judicial principle treasured by our founding fathers,” Baldwin said. “But if he happens to be tough on crime and have prosecutorial experience, he gets past the Romney filter. Many of Romney’s nominees fit that description.”
Baldwin added that Romney did have some ideological criteria for many of his nominees:
“It was criteria commonly used by the left. For starters, his nominees were mostly pro-abortion. Indeed, while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney told the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) that his judicial nominees would more likely protect abortion rights than would those of a Democrat Governor, according to notes from a person attending this meeting.”
Another Romney criteria, Baldwin explained, was “diversity.”
“The other criteria consistently emphasized by Gov. Romney in deciding judicial selections was ‘diversity.’ This is the silly notion that judgeships should reflect the population in terms of race and gender and even sexual orientation, regardless of a person’s judicial philosophy,” he said. “Clearly, the use of diversity quotas demonstrates Romney’s lack of a coherent conservative worldview.”

So, tell me again how we just HAVE to vote for the lesser of two evils again?
...And when this country goes Greece - I want it to happen under a Democrat. This Democrat.
That way we can get it over with and restart the whole thing.
And we can use the Democrat Party as examples of why we're getting back to basics and dumping their PC bullshit.


  1. Kurt, bear in mind that the Senate has advise/consent over SCOTUS nominations. Where's Justice Harriet Miers now? Oh, didn't make it, Senate wouldn't accept her, so Bush had to pick someone beside a crony: he gave us Alito, who helped give us Heller and McDonald.

  2. That's why we have a "wise Latina" sitting on the bench right now.
    And one who won't recuse herself from deciding on the Healthcare bill she helped work on.

  3. Bear in mind, Kurt, that when Sotomayor and Kagan were confirmed the Democrats still had a "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate. If Republicans control the Senate in large enough numbers, neither President Obama or President Romney could put in a Justice of his preference.

  4. The Republicans would pass whoever Romney put up to show 'party unity' or some other B.S.
    The Republicans of either House won't stop Romney -or any other president with an (R) from pushing whatever they wanted.

  5. Harriet Miers, Kurt. People like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Jim DeMint aren't willing to play rubber stamp just because the President is a Republican. NRA and other gun groups would get up on their hind legs, too.

  6. From the Harriet Miers Wiki-

    Hearings before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee had been scheduled to begin on November 7, and members of the Republican leadership had stated before the nomination that they aimed to have the nominee[Harriet] confirmed before Thanksgiving (November 24).

    Also from the next section-
    Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) recommended Miers as O'Connor's successor.[3][4][5] Bush agreed with Reid's suggestion, factoring comments by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) and ranking Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) that Bush's nominees should be outside of the appellate court system.

  7. Where is she, then? She's not on SCOTUS.

  8. She took herself out of contention.

    We're getting off the subject of why we should not expect the majority (which there still will be)of entrenched DeeCee Republican party members to NOT rubber stamp one of their own and his appointments.

  9. First of all, being President isn't the same as being a governor. It's easy enough for a RINO governor to select state judges by pandering to the ideological identity of the state he governs, which is what Romney did in Massachusetts; it's much harder to say that he'll select liberal jurists for SCOTUS because that's his preference. Romney has shown himself to be a panderer, and he'll want to get re-elected; to do that, he'll have to pander to the constituency that elected him. That constituency will not be comprised of gun-grabbers/gun-haters; Obama already has that constituency locked away. While Romney probably won't appoint justices as conservative as Roberts, Alito or Scalia, he won't be appointing Kagans, Sotomayors or Ginsburgs, either. He'll probably appoint "centrists" such as Kennedy or the retired O'Conner. Not the best that gun-owners can hope for, but that's the penalty for electing a RINO rather than a true conservative.