comMITTed to Romney!

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

The Right Romney Record

BOSTON – Last week, local radio talk show host Gregg Jackson penned an op-ed on the “real Mitt Romney.” Unfortunately, it failed to note the many conservative accomplishments Mitt Romney had as Governor of Massachusetts. Here is Governor Romney’s real record of leadership in Massachusetts:

THE RECORD #1: Gov. Romney Provided Strong, Pro-Life Leadership In Massachusetts And Massachusetts Pro-Life Organizations Agree.

• Gov. Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The “Morning After Pill” Without A Prescription. (Gov. Mitt Romney, The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
• Gov. Romney Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office Of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney Announces Award Of Abstinence Education Contract,” Press Release, 4/20/06)
• Gov. Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Gov. Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
• Gov. Romney Supports Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
• Gov. Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo-Destructive Research In Massachusetts. (Theo Emery, The Associated Press, 5/27/05)
• Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: “Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review, 1/10/07)

THE RECORD #2: Gov. Romney Championed Traditional Marriage In Massachusetts.

• Gov. Romney Called For A Massachusetts Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman. “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear.” (Office Of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Statement By Governor Mitt Romney On SJC Decision On Same Sex Marriage,” Press Release, 11/18/03)
• When The Legislature Would Not Vote On The Amendment, Gov. Romney Filed Suit To Force A Vote. “Governor Mitt Romney and a group of Massachusetts residents asked the state’s highest court yesterday to override the Legislature and let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage, accusing legislative leaders of violating the state constitution by refusing to act on the proposal.” (Jonathan Saltzman, The Boston Globe, 11/25/06)
• Gov. Romney Enforced A 1913 Law Preventing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Couples From Marrying In Massachusetts. “Same-sex couples who live outside Massachusetts will not be able to marry in Massachusetts when gay marriage becomes legal here next month, Gov. Mitt Romney said.” (Pam Belluck, The New York Times, 4/25/04)
• Massachusetts Family Institute Kris Mineau: “He’s been rock solid on the issue of marriage.” (Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 1/12/07)

THE RECORD #3: Gov. Romney Put Conservative Principles To Work In Health Care.

• The Club For Growth: “Governor Romney Deserves Credit For Proposing A Plan That Encourages Individually-Owned Health Insurance…” “Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code.” (The Club For Growth, 8/21/07)
• Health Care Reform “Has Cut The Number Of Uninsured In The State By Nearly A Third.” (Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 4/11/07)
• The New York Times: “Observers of the state’s progress since the health care law was passed in April 2006 say they are impressed that the varied constituencies – including health insurers, businesses, advocates, medical providers and taxpayers – largely continue to support the law and have worked to resolve differences.” (Pam Belluck, The New York Times, 7/1/07)
• Uninsured Massachusetts Residents Can Obtain Health Care Insurance For As Little As $175 A Month. Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 3/3/07)

THE RECORD #4: Gov. Romney Appoint Judges Who Would Be Tough On Crime And Would Not Legislate From The Bench.

• For The State’s Highest Courts, Governor Romney Said He Would Appoint Judges With “Strict Construction, Judicial Philosophy.” (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)
• For The State’s Lowest Courts, Governor Romney Focused On Legal Experience And Whether The Nominee Would Be Tough On Crime. “He said he has focused on two factors: their legal experience and whether the nominees would be tough on crime. He said most of the nominees have prosecutorial experience. ‘People on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away,’ Romney said.” (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)
• The Boston Globe: “Some of Romney’s nominees do have stellar Republican or conservative bona fides. For example, Romney’s pick for Peabody clerk magistrate, Kevin L. Finnegan, is a former two-term Republican state representative. Another choice was Bruce R. Henry, the son-in-law of former SJC Justice Joseph Nolan whom Romney wanted to represent his administration in seeking a stay of the court’s gay marriage ruling.” (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)

THE RECORD #5: Gov. Romney Took Action When Problems Were Found With The Big Dig. He Removed The Head Of The Turnpike Authority And His Quick Response Was Widely Praised.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Kevin McCullough TOWNHALL.COM

Very informative article that provides balance and context to Mitt Romney’s positions. As Mr. McCullough points out, its important to tell the whole story.

Thus far in this campaign, MR’s critics have been very selective about the information that they provide to the voters. I have seen the story about MR’s handling of the same-sex marriage controversy misrepresented several times.

Critics have strongly suggested that MR had other options at his recourse to resist the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling allowing same-sex marriages. What was he supposed to do, suspend the court and rule by executive order?

If this is an option for pro-life presidents, why is Roe vs. Wade still in effect?

Obviously, the answer is that it would be an unconstitutional abuse of power and it would not be allowed to happen and indeed it shouldn’t happen that way. Without a broad based changing of hearts and minds it could never be successfully enforced.

I included a couple of quotes from the article below. Good stuff to help refute the campaign of disinformation.

“They also seem to be short on actions of recourse for what their one-sided debate leaves Values Voters to do. In Rios’ one-sided monologue on Romney, housed at Camenker’s website - she goes so far as to imply that the aggressively pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-illegal alien, anti-gun, tax indifferent, sanctuary city defending, horrific judicial record, cross dressing former Mayor of New York would be a more ideal option - because he openly embraces those deficiencies. Jackson and Camenker offered no real clues as to who they would likely support.

For instance, if they wish to be “rule of law” conservatives - as is demonstrated by each of their beliefs that Roe v. Wade must be overturned, they cannot hold the expectation that the Governor would have assumed super-executive-branch powers and unconstitutionally instructed the Massachusetts legislature to ignore the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling. That’s executive branch tyranny - attempting to override judicial branch activism. The proper recourse for the seventy percent of Massachusetts voters who disagree with the state’s position to redefine marriage through judicial fiat - is to do so through the electoral process - something Romney encouraged and attempted to help lead the way in. It is also important to point out that neither Camenker, Rios, nor Jackson acknowledge Romney’s strong consistent support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Nor did they acknowledge the Governor’s definitive position in the issue of Senator Larry Craig, nor the fact that as the Governor revealed on my show that he would look for the input of those like Dr. James Dobson in his administration as further attacks against the family and child arise in our future.”

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

From Prosecutors expected to file charges against Bernard Kerik.

Once again, character…IT MATTERS AMERICA!

Highlights…

Bernard Kerik’s legal nightmare is about to get worse, with federal prosecutors expected to file charges against the former police commissioner that will likely include allegations of bribery, tax fraud and obstruction of justice, the Daily News has learned.

The indictment, expected next month, could prove to be an embarrassing obstacle for Kerik’s former mentor Rudy Giuliani, who is cruising at the top of the polls heading into the presidential primary gauntlet.

The bribery allegations against Kerik stem from a secret meeting at a bar in Tribeca, according to two sources familiar with the federal probe.

Photo Courtesy of The New Your Daily News

Last spring, Kerik turned down a deal to plead guilty to tax charges. Since then, the probe has expanded to include other charges, the sources said.

The indictment will have direct implications for Giuliani, the sources said.

For one, another Giuliani commissioner and a top inspector general during Giuliani’s years as mayor will be called as witnesses to describe the secret meeting in Tribeca.

The Giuliani officials are Raymond Casey, former head of the Trade Waste Commission, a city agency set up to keep the mob out of the carting industry, and Michael Caruso, former inspector general with the city Department of Investigation.

In July 1999, Casey and Caruso met with Kerik, then the city Correction Department commissioner, at Walker’s bar on North Moore St., court papers reveal.

Giuliani has extensive ties to Kerik, promoting him to correction commissioner, then to police commissioner. Giuliani later also hired him at his firm, Giuliani Partners, and recommended him to President Bush for the job of Homeland Security secretary.

The relationship soured in December 2004 when Kerik withdrew from consideration for the Homeland Security job and a torrent of accusations of wrongdoing poured forth.

Giuliani has since admitted he had erred in pushing Kerik for the Homeland Security job.

“It was a mistake,” Giuliani told CNN’s Larry King in February. “I think the answer is I made a mistake and I took responsibility for it.”

Share on Facebook

Share This

Woah Sally, don’t pull any punches. What a well written piece, and well researched and documented too. I’m so glad that Mr. Kmiec has brought this out in the open for all to see. It shows that Governor Romney is beyond measure the better person to be our next President.

From Governor Romney’s Press Release from today:

“Rudy Awakening –
Giuliani’s The-Constitution-Made-Me-Do-It Excuse Just Doesn’t Wash.”
By Douglas W. Kmiec
National Review Online
October 10, 2007

“Tuesday night’s Michigan debate was very revealing. The debate revealed the significant executive-leadership differences between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. When it gets down to specific cases, Mayor Giuliani is dependent upon others for direction and guidance and is just as likely to fall into mistaken ideas as not. At the same time, the debate revealed how, despite his protestations to the contrary, Giuliani is not really a supporter of conservative legal thinking.
“The facts on who supports spending restraint and tax reduction are plain. Romney does. Giuliani doesn’t. Giuliani’s lame excuse that ‘the-Constitution-made-him-spend’ just doesn’t cut it. Yes, Giuliani is right that the Supreme Court invalidated President Clinton’s use of the statutory line-item veto. But this is nothing Giuliani, who brought the case, should be proud of. Quite the contrary, it is the handiwork of the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.
“The central issue in the case was whether Congress can authorize the president, after he signed legislation, to not spend all the money authorized. Mitt Romney’s answer is an unequivocal: ‘You bet!’ Giuliani’s answer seems to be: ‘No, and give me the money, so I can spend it.’
“The notion that the Constitution made him bring the case in order to spend the money is ludicrous on its own terms. Even worse, is Giuliani’s failure to see what the result of his dubious litigation was: to deprive the nation as a whole of an important mechanism of bipartisan spending restraint; a spending restraint mechanism that exists in 43 of the states and that was pleaded for by President Reagan on multiple occasions.”

…
“Moreover, as Justice Scalia explained at length, presidents throughout history had been authorized by Congress on a piecemeal basis to, upon certain findings, decline to spend. The line-item veto act merely gave that a more permanent and sound legal footing – until Giuliani came onto the scene with his liberal-leaning litigation.
“But don’t take my word for it. Listen to Justice Scalia directly, who wrote:
‘Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the President to ‘decline to spend’ any item of spending contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional. . . .The title of the Line Item Veto Act, which was perhaps designed to simplify for public comprehension, or perhaps merely to comply with the terms of a campaign pledge, has succeeded in faking out the Supreme Court. The President’s action it authorizes . . .does not offend Art. I, § 7; and insofar as the substance of that action is concerned, it is no different from what Congress has permitted the President to do since the formation of the Union.’
“Mitt Romney is pledged to name to the Supreme Court individuals with the intellectual qualities and philosophy of judicial restraint of Justice Scalia, Alito, and Roberts. That is a meaningful pledge coming from Mitt Romney because he understands the practical consequences of a proper interpretation of the Constitution for the American taxpayer. Unlike Giuliani, he knows that the Constitution does not stand in the way of a bipartisan effort to limit runaway federal spending. Giuliani also says he likes these justices, but it’s not clear he understands why. Like Justice Stevens, the most liberal member of the Supreme Court, Giuliani was simply ‘faked out’ from taking a responsible fiscal action that the Constitution most certainly did not preclude.”…
Douglas W. Kmiec is chair and professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University and co-chair of the advisory committee on the Constitution and the courts for Romney for President.
To read the full op-ed, please see: The National Review

Share on Facebook

Share This

I figured it would be worth looking up the Clinton v. City of New York decision. The case was decided 6-3 and Justice Scalia happened to write a dissenting opinion (note: full text below the fold).

Whether Justice Scalia is ultimately correct may be a matter of opinion, afterall, Justice Thomas and CJ Rehnquist both disagreed with him. However, it is not as open-and-shut a textualist case as Giuliani would have us believe. A sound legal case can be made in favor of the line-item veto.

Let’s not pretend that Giuliani’s reasons for suing President Clinton were high-minded Constitutional principles. It was about the money. Giuliani was running a city and wanted more of it from the federal government. When President Clinton denied it to him, he led the charge to strip the presidency of this most worthy of powers.

That may have made him a good mayor, but there’s little doubt that the loss of the line-item veto has hurt this country greatly in the 10 years that have passed since this case was decided. Giuliani did not need to fight that battle. It was a battle of choice.

~~~Thomas

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

How important are the next two presidential terms? Consider this: Six of the current nine justices are today pushing 70 or are over 70 years old!   Not considering age, there are other factors that can cause a sitting justice to leave the Court such as accidents, premature death, dementia, Alzheimer’s, etc.  We could easily see four justices leave the Court in the next two presidential terms.   Think about a Hillary Clinton presidency!

It is highly probably that the very next President will be faced with nominating at least two of the current nine Supreme Court Justices based solely on age alone. Thomas Alan’s post below is another affirmation of the many statements Governor Romney has made that, if President, he will only nominate strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. Why is this important? Because many Republicans today are trying to figure out whom to support for President knowing full well that he will have to make these crtical decisions. Decisions that very well will determine the future of this great nation.

I realize I have written this many times in this forum, but Mitt Romney always delivers on his promises. He always executes to his strategic plan; nominating strict constructionist will be no exception! That has always been true in his business ventures, philanthropic service, and in government service. The other Republican candidates cannot say the same.

IN 2009 (when next President takes office):

Justice John Paul Stevens will be 89 (almost 90!)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 76
Justice Anthony Kennedy will be 73
Justice Antonin Scalia will be 73
Justice Stephen Breyer will be 71
Justice David Souter will be 70

Of the three leading Republican presidential candidates (all attorneys), Governor Mitt Romney is the only one who has a proven record of always delivering against his promises and always executing to his plan. RG and FT are using the same words as Gov. Romney; they just don’t have the track record to guarantee delivery.

~ Vic

“The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

— Ronald Reagan

Share on Facebook

Share This

Gov. Romney took the time to mark the first day of the Supreme Court’s term.

The First Monday in October marks the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court term. Cases in the upcoming term could dramatically impact the everyday lives of all Americans. The Court will face questions involving the death penalty, voter identification as a means of ensuring fair elections, efforts to stop child pornography, whether terrorists held as enemy combatants deserve special rights, and perhaps even our right to keep and bear arms. That is why it is important that we nominate justices in the strict constructionist mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.

Today reminds us that a judge’s most solemn obligation is to the ‘rule of law,’ a phraseology of which I am particularly fond since it comes from the original Massachusetts constitution of 1780. It reminds us that those appointed to the federal bench must leave behind their partisan passions and retain only one: the passion for ‘equal justice under law.’ Respect and fidelity to the rule of law and equal justice under law must guide the judicial mind and, in fact, they are required by the oath all federal judges must take.

Those holding themselves out for the Presidency have an equally solemn obligation: to find women and men for judicial service who respect the rule of law and who will be faithful to the law as enacted. As President, I intend to nominate judges who respect the separation of powers, are committed to judicial restraint, and have a genuine appreciation of the text, structure, and history of our Constitution. The judges I nominate will recognize, as I do, that as Justice Scalia once said, the Court ought not take the field as some kind of ‘junior-varsity Congress.’ That would wrongl

HT

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Share This

Jennifer Rubin appears to be busy lately. In addition to the Vin Weber interview, she has a great interview Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network over at the American Spectator. My passion for judicial issues temps me to post the whole thing, but in the name of restraint, here are the highlights:

How did she come to select Romney? She candidly acknowledges that she always liked Fred Thompson, in part because his support of causes like Scooter Libby “warmed her heart,” but ultimately concluded that Thompson could “not hold a candle to the Governor on intellect or leadership.” She contends that Romney is “the constitutionalist” in the race, meaning he best understands and supports concepts of federalism and the commitment to originalism in interpreting the Constitution.

In this sense, he’ll be even better than President Bush on the subject as our president has never been a huge supporter of federalism.

On the subject of the kinds of Supreme Court justices we can expect from President Romney:

Long argues that Romney “is the only one I’m absolutely sure” will give us more nominees like Justices Alito and Roberts. With these types of judges she believes we will continue the “incremental process” to return power to the people and allow policy decisions to be made democratically. She says this should not be a bad thing for liberals, who will be free to “fight it out” in legislative bodies to achieve their objectives. She notes that if in that context their ideas “don’t go over” then that is the appropriate outcome in a democracy.

And she reminds us of what the stakes are in the next election:

What would a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court look like? Long says that “a Hillary presidency would cement and even increase the very liberal and, in my view, incorrect excesses of the Warren Court.” Long explains that with the Warren Court judges began indulging in judicial activism — the practice whereby “a court substitutes its will for a legislative body where there is no constitutional reason to do so.” Long says that Clinton would “appoint people she is confident would arrive at policy outcomes” consistent with a “far reaching left agenda.” Long notes that once the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional matter “you can’t undo it by legislation” and slowly we “destroy self-government and put ourselves in the hands of judges of her [Clinton's] choosing.” She notes that the verb “cemented’ is used intentionally since constitutional doctrine often can’t be “repaired for a century or more.”

Emphasis mine.

She makes such an important note there. When liberal judges are allowed onto the bench, they take away our right to govern ourselves on so many important issues. Liberals are okay with that as long as they get their way (in fact, as Sen. Schumer makes clear, they believe ruling the judiciary to be their natural right).

In related news, CJ Roberts was taken to the hospital today after suffering a seizure. Let us wish for his good health.

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Share This

“Political Coup” is the phrase used by “The American Spectator” writer Jennifer Rubin (also Race42008.com contributor) to describe the addition of Wendy Long as a Senior Legal Advisor to the Romney Campaign. The press release came out a whole six days ago and would hardly mean anything to me except for a little explanation on Wendy Long’s background and the words of her powerful endorsement included in Jennifer Rubin’s article written today. (HT to EFM and Race42008.com for the story)

From Rubin’s Article:

Long is a familiar name to conservatives who follow the courts. She is chief counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, an organization of conservative lawyers that has played a critical role in the confirmation battles for appellate and Supreme Court judges including Sam Alito and John Roberts. She was a litigation partner with Kirkland & Ellis LLP and previously a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and to U.S. Appeals Court Judge Ralph Winter.

…

Long also explains that leadership “matters tremendously” in selecting a president. For her this includes “the ability to direct the many and far flung team” that a president needs to confirm judges and lead the Justice Department. She cites Romney’s experience in business and running the Olympics and as Governor as proof he can “lead a large organization and then delegate” to competent managers.

…

What does she consider the top legal issues for the presidential race? Without hesitation she says that judges are “the number one issue.” She explains that judges are “the most important [issue] because the federal judiciary affects people’s daily lives,” a situation she says that “shouldn’t be but is what we are confronted with” after years of creeping judicial activism. She notes that the next president may appoint “two, three or even four” Supreme Court justices and will dramatically shape the Court. She also lists tort reform as “tremendously important” since Romney, as a businessman, appreciates how litigation has “gummed up the wheels of commerce.”

…

How does she think Romney would do in appointing conservative justices? Long argues that Romney “is the only one I’m absolutely sure” will give us more nominees like Justices Alito and Roberts. With these types of judges she believes we will continue the “incremental process” to return power to the people and allow policy decisions to be made democratically.

Long does speak somewhat of Hillary and how her judicial nomination would be a stark turn to the left, and of Fred Thompson who though she deems him “warm” and friendly does not consider him of being “up to the task”.

The entire article is very interesting and I would encourage you to read the whole thing to catch the whole scope.

~Nate Gunderson

Share on Facebook

Share This

Do we have a Supreme Court nominee? No. Do we have a vacancy? No. Let that not stop Sen. Schumer from declaring war on our phantom nominee. He makes Sen. Kennedy’s “turn back the clock” stock speech look reasonable. Of course, if Sen. Clinton wins the White House, we’ll see extreme left-wing judges sail through the Senate with 90+ votes.

Just another reminder that the Democrats are playing to win in the Senate. In a similar vein, Democrats in N. Carolina are about to change the state’s election law so that Democrats should pick up an additional 6 electoral votes (HT race42008).

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Share This

Yesterday was a particularly great day for the conservative movement. Not only did we manage to get a majority of the Senate to vote down Sen. McCain’s “Grand Bargain”, the Supreme Court also curtailed race-based school districting.

But there’s bad news. Despite all logic, Justice Kennedy again thwarted the Constitution and declared that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections Clause still might have a few loopholes depending on his mood.

We are so close to achieving our goal of a judiciary that again respects the law above their own political judgements. This is why we need a man like Gov. Romney picking our next Supreme Court justice. Only one more and liberal court rulings will begin melting away.

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://pacer.cadc.uscourt…03/04-7041a.pdf

After decades of being trampled upon, Judge Silberman of the DC Circuit (who I believe was up for Justice Kennedy’s seat once-upon-a-time) wrote a masterpiece of an opinion in which he presents point-for-point (go ahead and read it, even novices should be able to follow) why the right to bear arms is an individual right, and not a collective right as many other courts have stated over the past 70 years.

Just like that, the 2nd Amendment has become a prime legal question that may well be reviewed by the Supreme Court within the next year. The last time the court really looked into the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was in United States v. Miller back during the Roosevelt Administration in which the defense didn’t even show up (Miller had died). It is long past time for the Supreme Court to review the laws that govern gun ownership. Unless the court decides to rule on narrow grounds (such as the claim that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply because Washington DC isn’t a state) this will be the most important case on the 2nd Amendment ever.

As per usual, we need to examine this through the lens of the 2008 elections. The obvious first reaction is that this is bad news for Giuliani. Giuliani was stronly in favor of gun control as mayor of New York, going so far as to sue gun manufacturers late in his term.

Gov. Romney’s record on the 2nd Amendment isn’t perfect either, however Evangelicals for Mitt has a nice post detailing the full scope of Romney’s record on the issue while the NRA has never had a problem with him.

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Share This

Confirmthem.com’s Marshall Manson spoke with Gov. Romney at CPAC yesterday. Romney’s response was both humorous and insightful:

“You have to have people who are willing to follow the law… Who don’t believe in substituting cocktail party values for constitional law.”

Emphasis mine. Gov. Romney continues to show that he gets it on this key issue.

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.politico.com/n…/0207/2957.html

Ben Smith’s article from Politico.com is interesting today. This is a short quote from a very balanced article on the subject:

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges.

Click here for the ENTIRE ARTICLE

~ Vic Lundquist

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.redstate.com/s…llow_bushs_lead

A contributor at Red State had the opportunity to ask Gov. Romney about the Judiciary

I asked my fellow RedState contributors earlier today to send me suggested questions to ask Mitt Romney during his press availability. Thomas Crown was the winner, and I asked this question of Romney: “Governor, if you were elected President, could you describe the type of justices you would appoint to the federal bench?”

I think the justices that President Bush has appointed are exactly spot-on. I think Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are exactly the kind of justices America needs. They’re people who believe that the Constitution is what they’re to follow, not what they’re to depart from; people who do not believe that legislation from the bench is the responsibility or authority of being on the bench. I respect legal scholars of all backgrounds, but those who are going to be on the bench, if I were lucky enough to appoint them, would be people who believe their job is to follow the law and follow the Constitution.

More like CJ Roberts and Justice Alito. I like that. It’s nice that President Bush did such a good job on his Supreme Court nominees (Miers aside) that they’ve become the new bar.

Keep in mind that, in the end, when we’re talking about abortion, gay marriage, and most of the other social issues, the president’s greatest power is in nominating judges who read the Constitution for what it is and don’t substitute their own opinions.

Sen. McCain’s record on judges is awful. Despite his record on abortion, it’s doubtful we can expect any good nominees to come from his office. He embraced the embarrassing Hamden Decision (which Gov. Romney immediately questioned). He Demanded the courts ignore the 1st Amendment in the name of worthless campaign finance reform that did nothing more than redistribute the money into rogue organizations (the new court is going to take a second look at his misdeeds). He was the primary architect behind the Gang of 14 deal that scuttled several brilliant legal scholars’ nominations in the name of “comity” within the Senate.

Giuliani is socially liberal. He might appoint judges that support a strong Executive Branch and stay out of the War on Terror (for that alone he’d probably be better than Sen. McCain), but he’s unlikely to choose nominees that will overturn liberal precedents.

In this critical arena, Gov. Romney is clearly the best candidate.

BTW, anyone like me who is interested in the Supreme Court, I suggest picking up a copy of “Supreme Conflict” by Jan Crawford Greenburg. Here’s a nice long excerpt to whet your appetite.

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Share This