Truth is, no matter how bad Romney's court nominations are (and let's just assume they'll suck), they are going to be better than Obama's. And the odds are Willard will use court nominations much like past presidents and, at least at the circuit and appeals level, throw bones to the base and nominate decent candidates.
Were it 4-3 liberal in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, this ridiculous Dane county judge's ruling would probably stand. Thankfully in this particular case, the court judges are elected by the people and the previous Democrat governor and legislature didn't get to shape it.
Saying all that, would I prefer your judicial picks to Romney's? Sure, you might nominate some great conservative jurists. I'd also prefer my neighbor's court nominees to Romney's - and my uncles, and my Dad's, etc. The problem is none of you won the GOP nomination for President, so none of you have even the slightest chance of being elected President. So in the real world, given a choice between the 2 candidates that can actually win, Romney is the best option where court nominations are concerned. And, in general, Republicans are almost always going to appoint better judges than Democrats.
The only reason I can’t win is because of the folks like yourself who say you’re conservatives but insist on supporting a flaming liberal.
If you all turned around tomorrow I’d win easily.
We don’t even need a majority to prevail. All we need is a plurality of one vote in each state.
I don’t believe Romney will have much room to nominate too many bad ones. There are too many GOOD ones available nationally. I am no Romney defender, but let’s face it, in Massachusetts there was and is not a lot of conservative bench strength. Having said that, yes he could have done better.