Posted on 06/17/2012 6:51:45 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Because judicial decisions have propelled American history and because a long-standing judicial mistake needs to be rectified, the most compelling of the many reasons for electing Mitt Romney is that presidential elections shape two of the federal government’s three branches. Conservatives, however, cannot coherently make the case for Romney as a shaper of the judicial branch until they wean themselves, and perhaps him, from excessive respect for judicial “restraint” and condemnation of “activism.”
In eight years, Ronald Reagan appointed 49 percent of the federal judiciary; Bill Clinton appointed 43 percent. Clint Bolick says that the power to nominate federal judges has become “the grand prize in presidential elections,” because presidents now choose appointees with special attention to judicial philosophy and because human longevity has increased.
In his lapidary new book, “Two-Fer: Electing a President and a Supreme Court,” Bolick, of the Hoover Institution at Stanford and the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, notes that Reagan was especially systematic and successful in appointing judges who would not surprise him, and his successors have emulated him. Since Barack Obama appointed Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens, whose liberalism surely surprised his appointer, Gerald Ford, the court’s liberals are all Democratic appointees, the conservatives all Republican appointees, and both cohorts frequently are cohesive in important cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Why did Rudman do that? I've heard/read that he did, but I've never heard of a motive.
Was Rudman gay? Did want to injure Sununu's influence, or his rep? Bush's?
If you look at the history of just about everyone you hurl these accusations at, you see a history of boosting that looks something like: Sarah Palin / Herman Cain / Allan West / Rick Perry / Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in either order. All of whom have more conservative bents than Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney, very true, has a chicken side and it shows here. Mitt should stand to learn to say the U word: Unconstitutional. (If he’s the great Mormon Redeemer of America, as I’ve heard it told, he’s supposed to correct America’s straying from the Constitution. So it seems really weird that the LDS hasn’t briefed him on this issue.) Anyhow, Obama isn’t chicken, he’s doing this to be nervy. And also, what happened to the GOP non chickens? Demand for them was diluted to death in struggles among a herd of cats, in a typically underwhelming primary turnout.
"Romney won't say he'll overturn immigration order"
AP ^ | Sunday June 17, 2012BRUNSWICK, Ohio (AP) — Mitt Romney is refusing to say that he would overturn President Barack Obama's new policy allowing some young illegal immigrants to stay in the United States.
The Republican presidential candidate tells CBS” ”Face the Nation” that if he’s president, Obama’s executive order “would be overtaken by events … by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution.”
Romney was asked three times in the interview if he would overturn Obama’s order, but he didn’t directly answer the question. Instead, he said would work to pass a law to help those young people who were “brought in by their parents through no fault of their own.” Romney said he doesn’t know why Obama “feels stop-gap measures are the right way to go.”
The candidate’s comments represent a further softening of his rhetoric on immigration since the GOP primary campaign ended.
It's getting deep quick, guys.
Mr. RomneyCARE HAS A LONG HISTORY OF MAINLY NOMINATING
ONLY DNC JUDGES.
Why does no one in the GOPe care?
answer: BECAUSE THEY ARE DEMOCRATS.
It certainly isn’t something I see every day, but observe definition #6:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lapidary?s=t
But I would not elevate Will’s essay to that height. For example, he’s advocating our allowing “activist judges,” and he lays calls for “judicial restraint” at the feet of Conservatives, but that talking point comes from the left.
At this point in time, the Federal Courts are occupied principally with the successful expansion of central, Federal government, and the limitation of state government and state’s rights. Regardless of the President, or ostensible party affiliation.
It’s only a difference in the matter of degree.
“I don’t like Mitt Romney, but he’s our only chance at overturning Roe vs. Wade, among other things.”
And you base this upon what?
“BINGO!!! If only people would realize this...”
I’m waiting for you ABO folks to realize that both candidates are leftists.
“For the 1,435,979 time I say this, here, there and everywhere: We can survive Glove; we CANNOT survive four more years of Obama, period.”
This country survived Woodrow Wilson (far worse IMO that Obama) and a Great Depression. Give this country some credit wouldja?
We’ll survive whomever wins the presidency. Please stop fear-mongering.
1. Virulently hostile media.
2. Lies from Axelrod's Chicago whores.
3. Intelligent play by the RNC, who apparently got billionaires to lure one conservative candidate after another into the race, until there were too many.
One FR poster asserted, on what information I don't know, that plutocrat Foster Friess lured Rick Santorum into the race with promises of financial support -- and then dumped Santorum as soon as it became apparent that Newt Gingrich, which it was Friess's ascribed ambition to defeat, dropped out of the race. Then Friess dumped Santorum before a critical round of primaries -- because Friess and the rest of the Plutocracy wanted Romney to get the nomination all along. Thus posted our FRiend.
Gingrich and Santorum were both supported by one or two people -- Gingrich by Adelson. That isn't healthy; there isn't enough money anymore available from small contributors to sustain more than one challenger to the Plutocrats.
Another way of saying this is, the Plutocrats have successfully priced democracy out of Republican politics, and have deliberately deprived the People of any chance to select their own candidate.
The People no longer have any say in politics. The Communists own the Democratic Party, and the would-be Slavemasters of the Earth own the Republican.
Why should anyone be CARING about “virulently hostile media” is the really sad thing to me. It’s plain it does have lots of influence, but the excuse for not being able to find out something for yourself, or at least to view each candidate’s own self promotional material, is rapidly going away with the internet. An internet upon which you can view what you want, when you want, rather than obediently waiting for your infotainment to be scheduled like a kid waiting for a lollipop from Mom.
Look at Sarah Palin, look at Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. That's my point. The haters of the human race who are journalists "disqualified" every one of our candidates, one after the other after the other, until only Santorum was left -- and then Friess dumped Santorum.
We’ll survive whomever wins the presidency. Please stop fear-mongering.”
Woodrow Wilson, although very left, wasn't a devout Communist, backed by 50+ years of successful coercion of the very fabric of America by said Communists. Obama is all that and this election is game, set and match.
The current depression we are in rivals the Great Depression. Look at the real numbers of unemployed and underemployed people.
Please stop trying to stifle free and accurate speech.
And this depression has people squatting in abandoned homes, a record number of people on food stamps and people prostituting themselves out for a few dollars. Apparently, you're too much of a dullard to see those things.
Self appointed thought police critters like you bring the cumulative IQ of the country down.
Self appointed thought police critters like you bring the cumulative IQ of the country down.
Thought police? I’m just not letting you ABO folks scare everybody with your doomsday message. If you think that brings down the IQ of the country then that’s your problem.
“Apparently, you’re too much of a dullard to see those things.”
You’re too much of a willard to see the truth.
(see what I did there?)
Great movie! Thanks for the laugh.
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.