[Last Dakotan]

After all, where is the conservative history behind Romney to guarantee this?

All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.

[EternalVigilance]

Name one conservative Mitt Romney named to the courts in Massachusetts.

[EGPWS]

Yes, we need to idolize a known socialist liberal hack liar, back him as a "conservative" party saviour, toss all conviction out the window to save us from a known socialist liberal hack liar from a "liberal party" for the good of the country.

It's worked so far....

Welcome to 4 more years of 0bama.

[Republic Rocker]

I have to agree Dakota..., it is what comes to mind every time says they are staying home come November because Obama is what we deserve over the centrist Romney..... that will become a regret as our children and grandchild for generations get ruled on by Obama lasting court appointees.

[Luke21]

“All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.”

And you Rino loving bullies need to can the insults and work on persuading people. You act as arrogant as the libs.

[EternalVigilance]

All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.

I can't be fear-mongered into giving up my faith, self-evident truth, or the principles upon which American liberty depends.

[Antoninus]

All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.

Stop pissing down my back and telling me is raining. Romney has no history of nominating conservatives to the bench. Quite the opposite. A David Souter type is the best we can hope for from Romney.

In other words, we have lost the Supreme Court -- probably for good.

[Oceander]

All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.

That should make anyone with doubts about defeating Obama sh&t their pants.

[OneWingedShark]

>All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.

Well, obviously fun for everyone.
And by ‘fun’ I don’t mean CWII, because the Kelo decision should have done *that*; it was, after all, a decision saying that the government can justify taking your property with nothing more than imagining (projecting) that it would generate some sort of taxable income.

[supercat]

All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.

He'd do less damage to the Constitution than would another Souter.

There may well come a time when there are five lawless judges on the Court. When that time comes, the only hope for the Republic will be for a significant portion of the populace to realize that although what the Constitution says, and what the Supreme Court says, will be one and the same when the court is doing its duty, there is nothing in the Supreme Law of the Land which gives the Supreme Court any authority to issue decisions contrary to it, much less anything which says such decisions should be regarded as superior to the Constitution.

The more overtly political the Court's leftist judges are, the more accepting people will be of the notion that an overt willingness on the part of some of the justices to ignore the Constitution does not change the Supreme Law of the Land. If in some case five judges openly ignore the Constitution, there may not be any remedy for the actual parties to that case, but nor is there any basis for declaring that the Constitution means the things claimed by judges who are overtly disregarding it.

[libdestroyer]

All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.

Nice try, but the Republicans Congress would NEVER let that happen. Unlike the Czars, the SCOTUS nominees must undergo a vetting process in the Senate.

Everyone (including myself) who has decided not to vote for Mitt will still vote down-ticket-Republican. Obama WILL be a lame-duck president!

Personally I see it as safer than a Republican Congress that votes in favor of Romney bills for the sake of party unity. (see TARP, No Child, etc...)

Once again... FEAR MONGERING seems the only way you establishment people operate.

[Churchillspirit]

All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean

Well said!