Replies

"How about Mitt? Did he appoint Republicans? Or a bunch of Democrats? I'd like to see a list of them with party affiliation."

An article in the Boston Globe on July 25, 2005 is a good reference for this information. It includes very pertinent quotes from Gov. Mitt Romney regarding his different criteria and judicial philosophy when appointing judges for the district criminal courts (tough on crime) versus appointments for the high state courts (strict constructionist). Excerpts are provided below with my emphasis added.

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.
With increased attention on judicial nominees after President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the US Supreme Court, Romney said Friday that he has not paid a moment's notice to his nominees' political leanings or sexual orientation -- or to the impact his choices might have on a future presidential run. 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.
------------- snip -------------
The governor said that, so far, he has had few chances to appoint judges to the highest state courts, where his criteria would change to include "strict construction, judicial philosophy."
"With regards to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren't really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime, because in that case, apply elsewhere," Romney said.

Thanks! Not as bad as with Rudy where we still can't find a single appointed Republican.

When you look at prospective executives, you have to look at the talent they pick and promote. Those are your future.

Look at Reagan. He had Roberts and Alito and Mark Levin and, gritting teeth, Giuliani.

Shows how appointments matter in building your organization and its future.

I could live with Romney's picks and explanations on his appointments since his nominations to those courts also had to be approved by a very liberal popularly-elected all-Democrat vetting board. So he did have to consider who he could get past them. If he focused on law-and-order nominees, well, okay. Maybe.

Of course, he'd have to be utterly convincing on his change on abortion. But a convert can be your best spokesman. Just as Reagan was, who formally converted to pro-life only in 1975. Or Bush who converted on the spot at the convention to pro-life and 'pro-voodoo'. Both failed to pick reliable nominees themselves at times. Reagan lost out on Sandra Day and Kennedy but succeeded with Scalia and Rehnquist. And Bush tried but was deceived by Souter and then at least neutralized that mistake with Thomas. But those who worked at the Justice Department in those years are still with us.