Skip to comments.Bork Endorses Romney
Posted on 12/16/2007 3:45:22 PM PST by AKSurprise
Noted conservative jurist Judge Robert Bork endorsed Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States Saturday.
Joining Romney for President, Judge Bork said, "Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today's endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. He knows firsthand how the judicial branch can profoundly affect the future course of a state and a nation. I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."
Judge Bork continued, "Our next President may be called upon to make more than one Supreme Court nomination, and Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation. I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States."
Welcoming Judge Bork's support, Governor Romney said, "For decades, Judge Bork has been a leader in moving the conservative legal movement forward. As one of our nation's premier conservative jurists, he has been an important voice for our conservative values in Washington. I look forward to his counsel and working with him on the most important judicial matters facing our nation today."
Judge Bork served as Solicitor General from 1973 to 1978 and acting Attorney General from 1973 to 1974. From 1982 to 1988, he served as a Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On July 1, 1987, he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In February 1988, Judge Bork resigned from the Circuit Court and joined the American Enterprise Institute. Judge Bork, who also served as a partner at a major law firm and a Professor of Law at Yale University, is currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Hudson Institute and a Professor at the Ave Maria School of Law.
One gun-grabber deserves another.
National Review is for Romney too.
Mitt is going somewhere, its only a question of if he can survive the Huck surge.
He stands good chances in Michigan, Nevada and New Hampshire.
But he needs to hold the line and try to win Iowa. Huck may pull it out. The smear campaign will be slowed down for Christmas.
The big states down the line are Rudy G territory (New Jersey and California, New York etc.).
My analysis, not endorsement of anyone.
Actually, even though Bork was borked, I think there are better conservative judges out there. He’s good, but not necessarily the best.
Considering his apparent willingness to throw principles out the window to back a fraud of a candidate, I’d hope there were better judges.
Anyone who flip flops on Sodomite Unions, forced Sodomite employment, stem cell research, illegal immigration, gun control, and opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion needs to learn more.
Ted Olsen for Rudy and Bork for Romney.
Weird isn’t it?
I was back and forth and confused for a while but I’m finally getting set on Romney myself, not because he is perfect or ideal on every issue, but because every one of the leftist candidates are so scary. I want to vote for the best Republican candidate who can hold to party together and be viable enough to beat the leftist in ‘08.
So his endorsement is a negative for me.
Now, I see that conservatism—despite what many people here believe—is a fluid concept that has different meanings.
And that Minuteman guy for Huck.
The Bork be with you....
It’s not a fluid concept at all, just a question of degree. That is why conservative organizations rate candidates on a scale of 1-100. No candidate, even Ronald Reagan could across the board get 100 scores from the plethora of conservative organizations. The idea is to look at what all the candidates are currently saying, look at their past records and accomplishments. Then take into account the scores from conservative organizations, and endorsements from notable and trustworthy conservatives. Put all that together and whoever rates the best on all counts, and is still electable is the candidate that should garner your support.
This is not how die-hards of either party make their decisions. The edge of the political spectrum on either side depends more on emotion and a gut feeling, over rationality. But the process described above is the most lucid and rational way to come to a conclusion on the candidate that could win, and is most in-line with your political and moral beliefs.
The anti-Mitters are knocking themselves out trying to figure out a way to attack Bork. They look kinda silly.
This was another enormous endorsement!
Repost, repost and repost. You think it will convince more to become Mitt fans?
Ah yes, I didn't think about that one.
Bork failed his 2nd test.
The Republicans who are screaming that Romney flip-flops seem incredibly narrow-minded. What kind of person is so righteous that they disdain anyone who changes their mind or conviction ? Scary stuff.
This is a huge endorsement!
“This is a huge endorsement!”
didn’t you get the memo? Bork is a RHINO!
Does the Second Amendment protect the right of all free persons to keep and bear such all artifacts as may be used as weapons in a well-functioning militia, from any action which would is designed to interfere in any meaningful way with free people's exercise of that right, or which interferes significantly with such exercise, whether by design or otherwise?
While there might be some quibbling over terms like 'free persons' (for example, I would not consider fugitives to be free persons) I see no reason the statement should not be regarded as absolute, given a reasonable definition of 'free persons'.
Sometimes a person will change his something and admit that he was wrong. I don't think any of us particularly mind it when politicians do that. On the other hand, when a politician appears to change his mind but completely fails to acknowledge that his earlier position was wrong, it suggests that the "change" is probably not genuine.
changes their mind every few months? yes that’s a concern. wouldn’t it bother you if romney changed his mind back to pro-choice once he wins the nomination?
Is he on drugs???
Heh, heh. Just kidding. Remember the knock on Bork was that he smoked marijuana as a college student. Unbelievably, it was none other than the pickle-livered, underwater stunt driver Ted Kennedy who led the charge against Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court.
What a world we live in.
Great to see NR and Bork endorse Mitt. Clearly the GOP mainstream prefers Mitt over Huck. Mitt is gonna win it all simply because Huck is a protest vote by fringe populist elements. Once the others quit, most of those voters will go to Mitt. The only problem would be if Huck pulls a Perot on us.
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.