Replies

Well he’s going to be the nominee. Unless something unforeseen happens and a credible 3rd party alternative arises (which is very unlikely), then it’s Romney or Obama.

With Romney, he might nominate good judges. With Obama, we know he will nominate terrible ones like Kagan and Sotomayor.

Unlike with Reagan’s awful mistakes nominating O’Connor and Kennedy, and then Bush’s with Souter, conservatives have their guard up. It was a near revolt of conservatives that gave us Alito instead of Harriet Miers. So Romney would have to intentionally pass up known conservative judges.

If Obama wins, its a safe bet that Ginsburg will go ahead and retire. Who knows, Breyer might do the same. Both Scalia and Kennedy are getting up there in age. Who knows how many vacancies the next 4 years will bring to SCOTUS.

I’m not a Romney fan. I’d rather we had a better nominee. But I’ll gladly take a chance with his judicial nominations over Obama’s sure-to-be horrible ones.

Doesn't matter what you want. Romney has the same chance as Dole and McCain.

/johnny

With Romney, he might nominate good judges. With Obama, we know he will nominate terrible ones like Kagan and Sotomayor.

Given Romney's record, we'll get the same type of nominees:

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.

Baldwin agreed, citing Romney’s statements about the two requirements he actually used when selecting judges.

“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.”