Posted on 05/06/2012 9:59:27 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush and is now a lawyer in private practice, is the favorite of many conservatives. Clement argued last month for the Supreme Court to strike down Obama's 2010 healthcare law, and he is defending laws that ban same-sex marriage and that target illegal immigrants. Clement, 45, would be "at the top of any short list right now," said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group that advocates for conservative nominees.
Asked about Clement, Mary Ann Glendon, a co-chairwoman of Romney's Justice Advisory Committee, voiced "unbounded admiration" for him. "He's the type of person who fits the mold that the governor has pledged to look for," Glendon said, adding that "it's much too soon to speculate about names."
Mentioned as often as Clement is Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Kavanaugh, 47, sits on a court that produced four sitting justices. He has deep roots in Washington, D.C., having worked in the Bush White House and assisted in the 1990s investigation that nearly led to President Bill Clinton's ouster. Kavanaugh is known for elaborate opinions such as a 65-page dissent he wrote in November exploring how an 1867 tax law barred courts from considering Obama's healthcare law until 2015.
A third possibility, Judge Diane Sykes, is often mentioned as a likely Romney nominee if the next person to leave the Supreme Court is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court's senior woman justice. Ginsburg has survived cancer twice. Sykes, 54, was appointed to a Chicago-based U.S. appeals court in 2004, overcoming Democratic criticism of her record in abortion-related cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefiscaltimes.com ...
You wish to create a Political Party of Saints and Angels who will do exactly what you want, 100% of the time?
Your problem started back in the Garden.
Your problem is with original sin and the fallen nature of man.
The political process is not perfect.
No political party will ever be perfect.
However, if you can not control the Republican Party with the level of perfection, purity and ideological correctness you wish, HOW ON EARTH WILL YOU EVER HAVE THE VOTES TO CONTROL THE ENTIRE ELECTORATE?
It is not the role of politics to affirm your identity, your ego, or pump you up, emotionally.
The real purpose of politics, in a free society, is to avoid armed rebellion.
You seem to prefer armed rebellion, as you refuse to participate, in any rational way, with the current process.
You wish to create a Political Party of Saints and Angels who will do exactly what you want, 100% of the time?
Your problem started back in the Garden.
Your problem is with original sin and the fallen nature of man.
The political process is not perfect.
No political party will ever be perfect.
However, if you can not control the Republican Party with the level of perfection, purity and ideological correctness you wish, HOW ON EARTH WILL YOU EVER HAVE THE VOTES TO CONTROL THE ENTIRE ELECTORATE?
It is not the role of politics to affirm your identity, your ego, or pump you up, emotionally.
The real purpose of politics, in a free society, is to avoid armed rebellion.
You seem to prefer armed rebellion, as you refuse to participate, in any rational way, with the current process.
You wish to create a Political Party of Saints and Angels who will do exactly what you want, 100% of the time?
Your problem started back in the Garden.
Your problem is with original sin and the fallen nature of man.
The political process is not perfect.
No political party will ever be perfect.
However, if you can not control the Republican Party with the level of perfection, purity and ideological correctness you wish, HOW ON EARTH WILL YOU EVER HAVE THE VOTES TO CONTROL THE ENTIRE ELECTORATE?
It is not the role of politics to affirm your identity, your ego, or pump you up, emotionally.
The real purpose of politics, in a free society, is to avoid armed rebellion.
You seem to prefer armed rebellion, as you refuse to participate, in any rational way, with the current process.
I didn't know that.
FAIL. I don't care whether they're best friends. That's like Ben Stein endorsing Stuart Smalley.
Get a better grip on reality. If Robamney (Obozo in Whiteface) is nominated no conservative worthy of the name has any choice whatsoever and the next POTUS election will not occur until at least 2016 (if Romney is defeated) or 2020 (if, God forbid, he manages to bamboozle enough gulls to be elected in 2012).
Do you expect Roman Catholics to vote for either Obozo or for Robamney when both have attempted specifically to persecute the Catholic Church, its bishops and its administrators by requiring that Catholic institutions fund abortion (chemical or IUDs or otherwise) and every form of "birth control" known to man or beast???? How about, witnessing that persecution, other folks of other faiths committed to innocent human life??? Obozo has enacted by executive order the regs concocted by Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius (once herself a Catholic but only in childhood) the requirement that bishops and administrators and Catholics in the pews MUST choose between funding what the Church teaches is mortal sin (therefore qualifying the participant for an eternity in hell) and/or life in jail on the installment plan and/or financial ruin. Robamney, in enacting the Romneycare policy in Massachusetts (a full year after falsely CLAIMING to have become pro-life) and BEFORE he sent his policy guys to guide Obozo in HIS design of Obozocare which is objectionable on precisely the same grounds as Romneycare, persecuted the Catholic Church in Massachusetts and its subordinate institutions in precisely the same manner.
My soul and its eternal disposition are not being put up for auction to either Romney or Obama. They can both go straight to hell.
They are both gun grabbers, babykillers, antimilitary wimps, "gay" everything enthusiasts, anti-American sovereignty, globaloney "climate change" and cap and trade enthusiasts, globalists eager to batter American traditions of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution both of which stand in the way of globalist fantasies (Romney has his reasons and Obozo has his own differing reasons), both eager to jack taxes on ordinary folks, both stooges for our financial elites. Neither is interested in the projection of American military power against our enemies, even when necessary. (Name one Robamney male relative who has EVER served on active duty in the US military). Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
We have witnessed an absolutely DISGUSTING primary campaign by Robamney in which he spent zillions in special interest money on absolutely negative advertising. carpet bombing the airwaves in each primary state with lies, libels, slanders against each and every decent patriot and social conservative seeking the GOP nomination; not ONE WORD about proposals of positive programming in the unlikely event of the election of the Taxachusetts trash bag.
If you are so totally blindered and obsessed with understandable opposition and even hatred for Obozo that you are prepared to ignore the virtually equal set of flaws and crimes in Robamney, hey, this is the USA and you get to vote and choose whatever poison you may prefer. It is also the USA for people who are actually conservative and absolutely refuse to vote for Obozo or for the equally despicable Robamney. When your candidate has rendered the GOP a radioactive ash heap, it will be those who refused him votes who will rebuild on the ruins of the party and the nation. That is also a choice and one well worth choosing rather than genuflecting to be on autosmooch for the patoot of that despicable POS Robamney or any other enemy of ourselves and our nation.
Kansas 58:
Here's to the saints and to the angels and to hell with Robamney, the GOP-E AND Obozo! The inch at a time "strategy" is for those willing to accommodate the evils that are all of those. It is a similar situation to the wisdom of those who REFUSED to vote for such trash as Gerald Ford, Bush the Elder, Robert Dole, and John McCain. I confess that I voted for each of them and for every other GOP POTUS candidate from 1968 to 2008. I have had quite enough. From 2012 on: If they want my vote, they will nominate a ticket and enact a platform which will reflect the values and beliefs of the 1970s New Right of which I am proud to call myself a member. FUBO and FUMR.
Rationality has absolutely nothing to do with voting for trash like Romney. Conservatives absolutely REFUSE to vote for Robozombie or for Obozo: for precisely the same reasons. To make believe that there are meaningful differences between the two of them is what violates both rationality and integrity.
Mitt Romney will do what he perceives as being best for his career. If he thinks that conservative appointments will benefit his standing in the polls, than we have nothing to worry about. But if he thinks the public moves to the left, than we have problems.
Hear, Hear, and God be with us!
Have you been drinking again?
Indeed.
In fact, we need to consider, given how much Romney and Obama are alike, whether having Romney in the White House with a Republican Congress might not actually be more dangerous than Obama with a GOP Congress.
After all, the Republicans will at least make an effort to stand up to Obama. Despite all that he's done, it would be a LOT worse had he continued to have a Democrat Congress.
However, there is a strong possibility that with Romney in office, the GOP would go along with him on any spending, bad judicial nominations, etc., since he's "their" guy, and we wouldn't want a Republican Congress embarassing a Republican President, now would we? It would be like George W. Bush with his prescription drug plan, No Child Left Behind, and the rest all over again, except magnified, since Romney's instincts are so much further to the Left than Bush's were. And we wouldn't even get any social conservative bones thrown our way with Romney.
It may actually be less dangerous in the long run to have a guy who the Republicans in Congress will actually fight than a guy who they will go along with almost all of the time.
As such, while we need to work hard to elect as many (conservative) GOPers at the congressional and Senatorial level, working for Romney really isn't such a high priority. He lied, cheated, and stole his way to the nomination. Fine. Let him have his turn being the footnote on Wikipedia. Maybe after foisting off and then losing with a GOP-E RINO candidate for, what, the fourth, fifth time now, the GOP-E will finally be discredited, and can be replaced by people with the country's best interests at heart, instead of their own personal power and advancement.
Shoot, I'm not even looking for an angel or a saint. I'd settle for a candidate who was actually a mainstream movement conservative. You know, like Republicans used to be, or at least had to pretend to be.
I'd be happy with a candidate I can agree with 80% of the time. But we don't have that. This candidate, I don't even agree with 10% of the time.
Let's face it, the GOP-E screwed up. They did everything they could to destroy the conservatives in the race, to get them thrown off the ballots, to suppress their message, etc. It worked for them. But at what price? They wanted so badly to shut out conservatives and get their guy into office that they had to do so this time nakedly and viciously. In the process, they've thrown water on the base's fervour, and have alienated large chunks of their own party, as well as the ever-growing body of conservative independents.
Kansas58's problem is that he's so worried that people will stop playing the game that he doesn't realise that the game isn't worth playing anymore.
You go girl! (Just doesn’t make the impact to say: you go boy!)
Apples and oranges still make fruit salads and they both support that as well.
That's the problem with Presidential judicial appointments. They're like Forest Gump's box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get.
Presidents who are normally solid conservatives have given us several useless duds, like Edward Douglass White (Taft appointee), Harlan F. Stone (Coolidge appointee, who morphed into a liberal and was then named CJ by FDR), and Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan, I won't even mention Anthony Kennedy because he usually votes the "right way" and Reagan's hand was forced on that one)
By contrast, squishy centrist Eisenhower appointed John Marshall Harlan II (the "great dissenter" of the Warren Court), squishy moderate George H. Bush gave us rock solid Clarance Thomas, and ultra liberal "progressive" Democrat Woodrow Wilson put hardcore conservative James Clark McReynolds on the court, who went on to vehemently oppose most of FDR' New Deal agenda. (how's that for a Democrat President accidentally appointing someone good?)
Lincoln's justices were generally much more conservative than him, and Salmon P. Chase struck down the constitutionality of paper money after helping enact it in the first place when he was Lincoln's Treasury secretary (a present day parallel would be if Kagan votes with the conservative justices to kill Obamacare... doubt it would ever happen, but you never know)
George Washington, who is a legendary President and a larger than life figure, appointed forgettable and short-lived Chief Justices whose service on the court are footnotes in history. By contrast, 1 termer John Adams, whose time as President is forgettable and far outshadowed by the man who defeated him (Jefferson), gave us John Marshall as CJ, perhaps the most well known and larger than life CJ to ever sit on the court.
So I don't believe Romney is inherently conservative or any any conservative principals he'd stick to no matter what, but I don't discount the chance he'd give us a great conservative justice (I don't discount the chance he'd give us a John Paul Stevens type disaster, either). But I'd feel the same way if we had a reliably "conservative" President in office like Rick Perry or Fred Thompson. Their advisers might talk them into nominating some closet liberal douchebag they swear is a "10th amendment states rights originalist federalist society guy" Someone on this thread who is staunchly anti-Romney did make a valid point, would anyone in their wildest dreams have ever guessed in 2000 that Bush would nominate Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court? It sounded like a bad joke when he announced the nomination, and still does long after the choice was withdrawn.
Until voters are allowed to vote SCOTUS judges out of office, you just have to cross your fingers and hope for the best.
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.