Posted on 04/24/2012 6:50:03 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
There's been lots of talk that we must come together and vote for Mitt Romney because of the Supreme Court. Standing on conservative principles, I hate the idea of being forced to vote for Mitt Romney simply because he is an alternative to Obama. Romney's record from abortion to gun control to green energy to healthcare looks like Obama's record. See why it's hard to come to terms.
A lot of people know this, but they end their argument with the Supreme Court. I question why should we trust a liberal in Republican clothing to be conservative friendly when it comes to picking justices for SCOTUS. No one can answer that. Conversation ends.
I decided to do some research and look at Romney's record of picking judges in Massachusetts. It's not impressive, and you should be scared as hell if the only reason you can come to terms with voting for Romney is based on SCOTUS picks.
The Boston Globe ran a story in 2005 on Romney’s judicial appointments.
Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters (75%) of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents – including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.
Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.
Well, point proven why you should be skeptical about Romney's SCOTUS picks if elected president, which is why Romney needs to vetted far more than he is being vetted.
“Will Liberal Mitt Romney be Conservative Kind to Supreme Court?”
Based on his record, no.
I am hoping Romney will not nominate Van Jones and Anita Dunn to the SCOTUS, both held positions in the Obama regime and were outed by Beck extensively on Fox TV. Dunn said she looks to Mao when seeking guidance. Jones is much worse.
New tagline ...
This is what troubles me most about a Romney presidency. I do think an Radical Marxist Obama second term would be worse than 8 years of the liberal Mitt, but on this point it might be a toss up.
I wouldn’t say zero, but I would put it pretty dang low.
Because not even they take a truly pro-life position. Like the rest of their colleagues they have never stated a word of support for Fourteenth Amendment equal protection for the child in the womb.
That's right. There isn't a single sitting member of the Supreme Court who is pro-life. Not one.
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade majority opinion, 1973"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
Semantics. But no point in arguing, fundamentally I agree with you on this point.
To lawyers it’s about semantics. To me it’s about persons.
Read some of your posts on this topic and I agree with your constitutional positions on abortion. My initial response was intended to be about the chances of getting a Kennedy vs a Kagan; and not about abortion. I miss-read it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.