Skip to comments.George Will: Unleash the high court
Posted on 06/17/2012 6:51:45 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Because judicial decisions have propelled American history and because a long-standing judicial mistake needs to be rectified, the most compelling of the many reasons for electing Mitt Romney is that presidential elections shape two of the federal governments three branches. Conservatives, however, cannot coherently make the case for Romney as a shaper of the judicial branch until they wean themselves, and perhaps him, from excessive respect for judicial restraint and condemnation of activism.
In eight years, Ronald Reagan appointed 49 percent of the federal judiciary; Bill Clinton appointed 43 percent. Clint Bolick says that the power to nominate federal judges has become the grand prize in presidential elections, because presidents now choose appointees with special attention to judicial philosophy and because human longevity has increased.
In his lapidary new book, Two-Fer: Electing a President and a Supreme Court, Bolick, of the Hoover Institution at Stanford and the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, notes that Reagan was especially systematic and successful in appointing judges who would not surprise him, and his successors have emulated him. Since Barack Obama appointed Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens, whose liberalism surely surprised his appointer, Gerald Ford, the courts liberals are all Democratic appointees, the conservatives all Republican appointees, and both cohorts frequently are cohesive in important cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I don’t like Mitt Romney, but he’s our only chance at overturning Roe vs. Wade, among other things.
George Will can suck it. I don’t read anything he writes any more...he is a token conservative mired in the suckupness of the ITB media whores.
George Will is clearly flawed, but this editorial is right on the money.
Perhaps you should not comment on Will by admitting you don’t read anything he writes any more. Hey, its your right, but you just look foolish in this particular case.
You would probably have liked this one.
“I dont like Mitt Romney, but hes our only chance at overturning Roe vs. Wade, among other things.”
Why? Because he will appoint liberal activist judges, just like he did as governor of Mass, and they will somehow become “severely conservative” and rule the way you want them to?
When did "lapidary" come to mean -- whatever is meant there?
Mitt Romney will do what’s best for his career. He knows that if he’s elected President, appointing liberals guarantees he won’t be nominated for a second term.
Ordinarily I’d agree with you, but Will has consistently worked against conservative principles as evidenced by his ‘work’ during the tenure of this administration.
He only comes back to the conservative fold when he feels like his token conservatorship in the DC media is faltering. Like it I might have, but I don’t need to hear it from him. He’s useless from a perspective of helping this country get back on track now. We need to discount and discard these pretenders.
Flawed, true. Regardless, I don’t need Will to tell me what to think any more. He is irrelevant and untrustworthy in my opinion.
The main reason to vote for Romney presently, is to get rid of Obama. Priority one. The rest can be worked on. Some here seem to be losing sight of this....if you don’t get rid of Obama, nothing else matters.
Why would he “KNOW” that?
The dimwits mantra NOW, even though he is a proven socialist in word and deed, is that he sucks but is better than obama.
SO, when he is up for reelection, the mantra then will be, “yeah romney sucks, but we cant afford to let the democrats win” and the dimwits will eat it up.
He will appoint liberals without a shred of GOP opposition. and in 4 years you will be arguing why its important to elect him again because we just cant have “yet to be determined” democrat in office.
Will does a good job explaining the counter-point to “restraint”. We are indeed guilty of elevating restraint to the detriment of liberty.
Given his desire for a reduction in executive activism as expressed in “Restoration” some of the commentary is refreshingly critical of the democratic excess.
From your lips to God’s ears. It sure would beat the hell out of 4 more years of this!
BINGO!!! If only people would realize this...
“C’mon, this is George Will. Make allowances.
I believe that this definition refers to “monumental,” by admittedly a quite circuitous route.”
I think that this is a big stretch, even for George Will.
"having the elegance and precision associated with inscriptions on monumental stone "
A peculiar way of describing an entire book.
I don’t disagree with you on Will in general. I just find it amusing that you bothered to enter a discussion over an article you didn’t read from an author you never read - and the irony is that this particular piece is one you would likely agree with.
I figured it meant "heavy," as a tome. However, it's just the opposite at less than 100 shortish pages of text, hence the claim.
Free Preview, which includes the first chapter.
Right now the Senators propose the nominations..and the GOP
Pres goes along with too many liberal appointments. This should stop. Nowhere does it say that the Senate appoints judges..they just confirm and if we have a majority..make them all conservative.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
What about Souter?
Warren Rudman, then the Senator from New Hampshire, tricked John Sununu into promoting him to George Bush. Republicans now do a better job of vetting judicial nominees then they used to.
"A President is entitled to his appointments."
Hard to imagine how we go to this point, right?
Whoever said that has a short memory, unless Bush the Elder really meant to appoint a far-left David Souter to SCOTUS. My only hope, and it's scarcely more than a hope, is that a President Romney will break with his Massachusetts history of appointing far-leftists as Judges.
I don’t buy the ‘tricked’ argument at all.
But still, he is a liberal who was named by a Republican post-Reagan.
I also don’t see how Will can both claim that Kennedy is a conservative and not somehow have a secure conservative majority as it is. Answer: Kennedy’s a moderate and so we’ve a swing court that leans a tad conservative.
If the Congress is politically configured similar to the Mass leg-
islature then you may have a point. But the US Senate is not as
completely dominated by libs as is the Mass legislature so Romney,
as president, has some leeway and a degree of exposure to con-
servative pressure when it comes to the appointment of judges.
That is true, but it’s more complicated than that. Many call Sandra Day O’Connor a mushy moderate, but that overstates her alleged liberalism. It’s true that her record on human life and affirmative action was dissapointing, but she was great on property rights. Anthony Kennedy is pretty good though not stellar on human life issues, but he’s more trusting of government on property rights.
One of the reasons that George W. Bush choise John Roberts as Chief Justice is that Anthony Kennedy was known to think highly of him.
He won't appoint open liberals. He'll appoint judges that appear conservative that will ultimately uphold Roe and force gay marriage on the nation. The last thing Romney wants is to deal with condemnation of having been the President that appointed a judge that overturned Roe.
Worse, his election will prompt Kennedy or Scalia to retire when the otherwise would have waited until after Obama was out of of office to do so.
George Will is in love with his thesaurus.
Will took a decidedly leftward slant several years ago. IMO, he is one of the poster childs for waht is wrong with conservatives in this country - They won’t come right out and be clear and plain with their position and defense of conservatism.
I hear that. Romney is more a politician than an ideologue. A conservative Congress can lead Romney by the nose the way Newt Gingrich led Bill Clinton by the nose.
You are free to do as you please -- even if it is stupid.
That’s about the best way to phrase it.
For the 1,435,979 time I say this, here, there and everywhere: We can survive Glove; we CANNOT survive four more years of Obama, period.
We can survive Glove; we CANNOT survive four more years of Obama, period.
The thought of Obama being re-elected should be terrifying to everyone. But it’s not and that’s just as scary.
“The thought of Obama being re-elected should be terrifying to everyone. But its not and thats just as scary.”
What matters more, is making sure we elect 68 Republican conservative senators who can be counted on to convict and remove Obama from office. If you have the 68 senators, you don't need the White House, because neither Obama nor Biden will be able to get homosexual socialist judges confirmed to the Supreme Court bench, or LOST and the ICC treason-treaties ratified.
You don't need Romney in office to do that.......
But if Romney IS the President, how do you defend against his appointment of a homosexual socialist, or his advocacy of NWO treaties and abrogations of US sovereignty? With a NWO enemy politician in the White House and the titular, de facto leadership of the Republican Party, how much harder does the task of Tea Party Caucus and conservative Republicans become, to defend the nation against NWO Romney-ism?
You may be wrong. See my last.
We are on the horns of a dilemma: the White House is being contested by two of our greatest living enemies. One is the creature of George Soros and the NWO; the other is the creature of Manor Bush, the RNC, and the NWO.
See the problem?
"Romney Screws Pooch on Immigration"
The lesson here, is that Romney didn't "make a mistake" or "misunderstand" or "screw the pooch".
Romney's position is the same as Obama's -- but he won't admit it, and so we get stories like this instead, while other Republicans flail around looking for an "explanation" involving a "mistake". Ain't no mistake, kids -- this is Romney NWO-ism in action.
One-hundred-and-forty-proof Romney, straight and uncut.
And you want to buy four years of this? Maybe eight? With this guy as the Leader of your party, defending you against the Hillary! and Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle and all the Bloombergs and Sharptons and "Moonbeam" Browns?
Why did Rudman do that? I've heard/read that he did, but I've never heard of a motive.
Was Rudman gay? Did want to injure Sununu's influence, or his rep? Bush's?
If you look at the history of just about everyone you hurl these accusations at, you see a history of boosting that looks something like: Sarah Palin / Herman Cain / Allan West / Rick Perry / Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in either order. All of whom have more conservative bents than Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney, very true, has a chicken side and it shows here. Mitt should stand to learn to say the U word: Unconstitutional. (If he’s the great Mormon Redeemer of America, as I’ve heard it told, he’s supposed to correct America’s straying from the Constitution. So it seems really weird that the LDS hasn’t briefed him on this issue.) Anyhow, Obama isn’t chicken, he’s doing this to be nervy. And also, what happened to the GOP non chickens? Demand for them was diluted to death in struggles among a herd of cats, in a typically underwhelming primary turnout.
"Romney won't say he'll overturn immigration order"
AP ^ | Sunday June 17, 2012
BRUNSWICK, Ohio (AP) Mitt Romney is refusing to say that he would overturn President Barack Obama's new policy allowing some young illegal immigrants to stay in the United States.
The Republican presidential candidate tells CBS Face the Nation that if hes president, Obamas executive order would be overtaken by events by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution.
Romney was asked three times in the interview if he would overturn Obamas order, but he didnt directly answer the question. Instead, he said would work to pass a law to help those young people who were brought in by their parents through no fault of their own. Romney said he doesnt know why Obama feels stop-gap measures are the right way to go.
The candidates comments represent a further softening of his rhetoric on immigration since the GOP primary campaign ended.
It's getting deep quick, guys.
Mr. RomneyCARE HAS A LONG HISTORY OF MAINLY NOMINATING
ONLY DNC JUDGES.
Why does no one in the GOPe care?
answer: BECAUSE THEY ARE DEMOCRATS.
It certainly isn’t something I see every day, but observe definition #6:
But I would not elevate Will’s essay to that height. For example, he’s advocating our allowing “activist judges,” and he lays calls for “judicial restraint” at the feet of Conservatives, but that talking point comes from the left.
At this point in time, the Federal Courts are occupied principally with the successful expansion of central, Federal government, and the limitation of state government and state’s rights. Regardless of the President, or ostensible party affiliation.
It’s only a difference in the matter of degree.
“I dont like Mitt Romney, but hes our only chance at overturning Roe vs. Wade, among other things.”
And you base this upon what?
“BINGO!!! If only people would realize this...”
I’m waiting for you ABO folks to realize that both candidates are leftists.
“For the 1,435,979 time I say this, here, there and everywhere: We can survive Glove; we CANNOT survive four more years of Obama, period.”
This country survived Woodrow Wilson (far worse IMO that Obama) and a Great Depression. Give this country some credit wouldja?
We’ll survive whomever wins the presidency. Please stop fear-mongering.
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.