And we will be blaming you for pushing Romney as a nominee when the only thing inevitable about him is that with his lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal, he is the only GOP POTUS candidate guaranteed to give Obama re-elctions.
It will be you, and others like you, backing a man with an 'R' next to his name but with a record that is comparative to Obama's that allows Obama to actually appoint leftist extremists to the SC of the US.
ANd even if Romney, improbable as it now appears won the election, those same bad USSC choices you are afraid of would still occur because Romney has a similiar record on judicial appoinments as Obama.
Out of 36 judicial nominations, he appointed 27 far-left extremists.
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.”
A comparison between Obama, Mitt, and Newt showing the near complete equality between Obama's record and Mitt's and the almost complete inequality between Obama's and Newt's:
