Replies

Yes, I have heard of Earl Warren. Just begs the question: do you believe that a Romney nominee would be as bad for the country as an Obama nominee? I have asked this question several times. Nobody has answered it, because the answer is too obvious.

A Romney nominee would not be a Scalia or a Thomas. He might be an Alito or a Roberts. Obama would nominate Mao, Alinsky, or Farrakahn. Anyone doubt this?

Yeah I doubt it

That degenerate clown from Kolob nominated more democrats than republicans to the bench in Mass, plenty of homo activist judges too.

THERE IS NO GOOD GODAMMNED REASON TO VOTE FOR THAT COWARD AND LIAR.

Need an independent on the ballot in all 50 states to keep that con man cultist out of the WH.

do you believe that a Romney nominee would be as bad for the country as an Obama nominee?

It was in Massachusetts. Romney appointed radical judges with ties to homosexual rights groups. Voila! Homosexual marriage and adoption rights via the courts. He also supports Roe v Wade as "established law".

And the lesser of 2 evils is STILL evil.

A Romney nominee would not be a Scalia or a Thomas. He might be an Alito or a Roberts. Obama would nominate Mao, Alinsky, or Farrakahn. Anyone doubt this?

Nothing about Romney or his record supports your position.

Romney nominated 27 extreme left-wing, Progressive Liberals out of 36 nominations.

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.”

How is it that so many of you pimping Romney are so ignorant of his record?