[Artemis Webb]

Re #14:

Some people are their own people and don’t believe letting Barack Obama have four more years of making LIFETIME court appointments is in the best interest of conservatism either.

Did you go screaming to your mommy or your teacher when you didn’t like something you heard as a boy also?

[Sola Veritas]

“Some people are their own people and don’t believe letting Barack Obama have four more years of making LIFETIME court appointments is in the best interest of conservatism either.”

Wrong. Romney will, at best, pick a David Souter. That doesn’t help anyone. He cannot be trusted in the office anymore than Obama. Plus, if he makes a bad appointment, the GOP members of the senate will feel compeled to endorse it. At least Obama’s appointments are obvious epic failures to will be resisted.

Also, you don’t get it friend. Insults, like “crying to momma”, won’t work. I just toss you on the same pile of trash as Obama and Romney. Both are unacceptable choices.

If you want to drink Romney’s Jim Jones Kool-aid...I can’t stop you.

[SoConPubbie]

Some people are their own people and don’t believe letting Barack Obama have four more years of making LIFETIME court appointments is in the best interest of conservatism either.

You mean like these appointments that Romney made?

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.”

Or do mean like when Mitt Romney nominated 27 out of 36 Democrats and only nominated 9 Republican nominees for court judgeships?