Skip to comments.Romney Attacks Santorum for Supporting Roberts and Alito
Posted on 02/23/2012 2:47:27 PM PST by Qbert
In an amazing moment in last night's debate, Rick Santorum suddenly found himself under attack by Mitt Romney -- for seeing to it that the Supreme Court had two conservative justices.
As usual, the moment was turned upside down by the media. In 2004, Santorum, then Pennsylvania's junior Republican Senator, famously supported Arlen Specter for re-nomination over the conservative Pat Toomey. To anyone paying attention in the day, it was crystal clear that Specter, if re-elected, would be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a longtime goal of the one-time Philadelphia District Attorney. Toomey, a businessman, would not only be a freshman if elected, he wouldn't be sitting on the Judiciary Committee.
The dilemma for Pennsylvania Republicans was clear...
...Santorum, at considerable risk to his own Senate seat and after confronting Specter on the subject, endorsed his senior colleague. Two years later, Santorum did pay the price. His famous 18-point loss came at the hands of not just angry liberals but angry Toomey supporters seeking revenge.
Specter did as promised, skillfully wielding the gavel, barking back at an aggressive Ted Kennedy -- and getting both Roberts and Alito confirmed. Where to this moment the two sit as a solid core of the conservative majority on the Court.
Lost in the gotcha moment last night, in which Romney said that Obamacare -- the Son of Romneycare -- was made possible by Santorum's support of Specter, was the unspoken fact of the Supreme Court.
The fact that Romney seems clueless to the point is only one more indication that were he to be trusted himself with a Supreme Court nomination -- trouble.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The Boston Globe is slapping Romney over the fact that 3/4 of his own judicial nominees were democrats.
And if ANYONE thinks that somehow we’d get a better SCOTUS appointee from Romney than Obama ... wanna buy a bridge? At least the GOP would filibuster Obama.
C’mon Rick. You gotta do this for America.
I bet 100% were leftists.
Yep, so much for the argument that, “You have to vote Romney to save the Supreme Court.”
Folks, please give the BIG $$$ to his Super PAC!
Actually not that much of a SuperPAC gap in Michigan. Romneys SuperPAC has spent $2.4M, Santorums $1.7M. http://bit.ly/xhsFg0
Actually, this is one area where I think Romney would be okay. Bork is one of his main advisers on judges.
From the little bit of the story I read it said that he actually passed over republicans to pick the democrats.
Agree. Am giving Rick what I can.
Republican Presidents gave us Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and other equally outstanding justices. Does anyone doubt that these are the kinds of people Romney would nominate?
"This article makes no sense."
The proof is in the pudding. Roberts and Alito are on the Court.
Specter bolting years later and becoming a Dem was due to the inept GOP leadership at the time, and Specter's slipperiness.
Romney was apparently critical of Santorum for supporting Spectre.
Apparently to the author this is being critical of Santorum for supporting Roberts and Alito.
Quite a long chain of non-causality from one to the other!
I’m sure Rick supported him because he was returning the favor for getting Specter’s endorsement for himself. To me that would have been maybe a better answer. Say that Specter helped him in his run and he made a promise to do the same for him, and couldn’t go back on his promise even though he disagreed with him on some issues. And for that matter throw in that he doesn’t consider an endorsement a big deal because he trusts the voters to make up their own minds. Just look at how Romney’s endorsements in South Carolina, Minnesota, etc. worked out.
What’s wrong, Willard? Can’t you handle conservative judges? Actually Constitutional judges?
Go away, Willard, go away!
I didn’t read the story. I had heard the statistics before. I’m just saying that I suspect that regardless of party affiliation, Republican or Democrat, 100% of the judges were left wing statists.
This is quite a stretch of an article.......
I mean, really.......
Romney’s point, such as it was, was that Santorum was responsible for Obamacare because he endorsed Specter and Specter was the deciding vote for Obamacare. The headline would have been more accurate if it said “Romney Attacks Santorum for Supporting Obamacare.” It was a terrible stretch by Romney and a lousy response by Santorum, who could have just said he had no way of predicting that Specter would switch parties years later.
Well, actually, Santorum backed Specter for three reasons:
1) Because Rove and Bush twisted his arm, and said that Toomey couldn’t get elected.
2) Because Bush said that he needed Specter to confirm his SCOTUS choices. Don’t underestimate Specter on that; I don’t trust the guy any further than I can kick him, but he was very skillful at that sort of job. And he succeeded. The Democrats had enough Senators to filibuster, as they have often done to block appointments, but Specter put the pressure on them—before he went back to his usual crazy ways.
3) Santorum endorsed Specter because Specter had endorsed him. It wasn’t easy for a conservative to win in that state, so Specter’s “centrist” endorsement of a conservative was valuable. Rick returned the favor.
Rick later lost in 2006 for a number of reasons. I would chiefly blame Bush and Rove, who won in a landslide in 2004 and then proceeded to blow it by disappointing the base. Few conservatives won in 2006. It was a Democrat landslide. And Rick was further handicapped by a popular opponent and by the stupid Toomey supporters who stayed home in a snit. Good work, guys, putting Casey into office.
I don’t really know or care. I do know that I’ll be voting for Santorum here in Michigan regardless of who he endorsed in the past.
"Romneys point, such as it was, was that Santorum was responsible for Obamacare because he endorsed Specter and Specter was the deciding vote for Obamacare."
Romney's argument is beyond laughable. We wouldn't have had Obamacare in the form it took if not for... Romneycare.
Good. I hope he creams Romney in Michigan.
And in Washington NEXT. : )
Romneys favorability at 27/63 in WA due to big drops with Dems, indys, AND GOP over last 6 months
“The Boston Globe is slapping Romney over the fact that 3/4 of his own judicial nominees were democrats.”
As Mr. Burns would say “excellent”.
It makes perfect sense, as a matter of fact it was exactly the argument GW made. Unless you have another reason for the comment.
Friday, December 28, 2007 - Boston Herald
"Former Gov. Mitt Romneys administration failed to act on disciplinary recommendations
that would have kept ex-con killer Daniel Tavares locked up another year -
and behind bars at the time he was accused of killing a newlywed couple in Washington state."
"Despite Tavares long history of violence, the Romney-led Department of Correction
took no action on recommendations that he be stripped of good time because
of assaults on prison guards in 2003 and 2005, said sources familiar with a state probe into the case."
"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans,
has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced,
instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who
have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.
Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats
or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians
or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show.
In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters,
and 14 registered Democrats."
- Boston Globe 7/25/2005
Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the "real threat to the States is not the
constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate,
but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . ."
Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one
of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court.
Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which,
in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision
on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
- U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004 P>
"Romney announces he won't fill judicial vacancies before term ends
Despite his rhetoric about judicial activism, Romney announced that
he won't fill all the remaining vacancies during his term - but instead
leave them for his liberal Democrat successor!
Governor Mitt Romney pledged yesterday not to make a flurry of lame-duck
judicial appointments in the final days of his administration . . . David Yas,
editor of Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is "bucking tradition" by resisting the urge to
fill all remaining judgeships. "It is a tradition for governors to use that power to appoint judges
aggressively in the waning moments of their administration," Yas said.
He added that Romney has been criticized for failing to make judicial appointments.
"The legal community has consistently criticized him for not filling open seats quickly enough
and being a little too painstaking in the process and being dismissive of the input of the
Judicial Nominating Commission," Yas said.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006
I watched the debate on this issue and Romney is sending me into the “I Can’t Vote Camp”. I also absolutely believer that Obama will clean Santorum clock on any issue and the only one who can rally the die-hard troops, pose the proper issues and articulate the nitty gritty is Newt. I’d rather die/lose with a fighter than any other contenders.
No $$ for Ricky, he can ask his “team” for $$.
YESSSS!!!!! It’s time that Santorum picked up on this fact and eliminated Romney! Bob
Will someone please bitch slap Romney.
Right. Now the argument is you had to vote for Specter to save the court.
I assume it’s many things, including payback for Specter supporting Santorum in his first Senate race, and throughout his career.
Much like Sarah Palin endorsed McCain over a more conservative primary challenger in a senate race in 2010, apparently as people here said to pay him back for picking her in 2008.
Now, Specter turned out to be a worse senator than even John McCain, so while the decisions were similar in type, they were not in scope.
Of course, if Toomey had lost in 2004, as he was likely to do, Obamacare would have passed in 2009 anyway, after the democrats took over (a democrat elected in 2004 would have been more liberal than even Arlen Specter was after he turned democrat).
It is however possible that even with a democrat senator, we’d have gotten the two supreme court nominees — hard to say whether the RINO who would have ended up in the judiciary committee would have been more likely to oppose the conservative judges; at least Specter didn’t.
But it’s really easy to look back 6 years later and pretend you’d have known the outcome. Fact is, people who serve together, and have received political help throughout their careers, tend to help back, like Sarah Palin did in 2010 with McCain.
And if McCain votes with the democrats, I guess some will blame Palin for it, but I’m guessing most won’t. (The other argument would surely be that her endorsement was meaningless to that contest, while Santorum’s was critical. Although it’s hard to imagine how much help an endorsement from a guy who loses his election 2 years later by almost 20% could have been.....)
The article is a lie. Romney attacked Santorum for supporting Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey not for Alito and Roberts.
Heck those are the kind of people I think Santorum and Paul would nominate!
The Dems helped one of those numinations along when they where so out there with their attacks that the wife left crying. A case of taking things to far.
Toomey would not be head of the Judiciary who votes candidate up or down. That has been explained numerous times. Toomey would have just been a regular vote with ZERO power.
Spectre was - and remains - a Dimocrat turncoat. A traitor. It’s a fact of history. We all saw it. I spit on him.
Bring up Spectre in no way helps Santorum.
That is laughable on its face. Unfortunate as it might have been no replacement would have had the influence that Specter had on the Judiciary Committee. That is how the Senate works sometimes. It's just the reality of it.
Any statement about Romney that might possibly be construed as positive or neutral has been expressly banned on this site. If Mittens is the nominee, we are all to vote for a third party candidate and make sure that the Kenyan Communist gets another 4 years to destroy the USA.
Spector was the chairman of the judiciary committee. He could have made it very difficult to get good appointments through. I didn’t like it at the time that bush and santorum did it, but it proved to be smart to get conservatives through the committees.
I recently read a post by a lib on Facebook who said he would be fine with EITHER Romney or Obama, pointing out the fact that both are pro-abortion and would ensure that there would be a universal health care mandate.
Any conservative who votes for Romney during the primary should be summarily marched outside and shot (figuratively speaking since bigsis is watching).
According to Wiki, had Spector lost in 2004 but the GOP had gotten the majority, next in line for the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Widestance, er Larry Craig.
Maybe that had something to do with it?
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.