Replies

Let me be the first to say, “Duh!” It’s Massachusetts. The Governor’s council is 7/8 Democrats and the legislature is 80% Democrats.

The fact is that Romney had 100% control over who was nominated. He refused to even nominate moderate judges.

Tell us how things are going to be any different if Democrats control the Senate or if they threaten to filibuster. Romney doesn't have conviction or courage to fight for conservative nominees. He won't even waste political capital trying.

Romney did not have the opportunity to nominate a single justice to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Not one. What he got to nominate were lower court positions that are, in most states, far less policy-oriented and political than are nominations to the highest court. In an overwhelmingly Democratic state, anything less than an overwhelming number of Dmeocratic nominees would not have been approved.

A Republican President can pick a fight with with Senate democrats over nominations because he has a real chance of winning. There is a strong tradition of giving Presidents some discretion absent strong grounds to the contrary. There is also the threat of the a GOP majority to use the "nuclear option" to bypass a filibuster. That's how Bush got through Alito and Roberts.

But a GOP governor in Mass has no such leverage. He's not only facing an overwhelmingly Democrat board that must approve all his nominations, but an overwhelmingly Democratic electorate that is just not going to side with him on disputes over judicial nominees. In other words, and GOP President has a lot of leverage. A GOP governor of Mass has zero.