FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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 government’s 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 court’s 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 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."
Orin Hatch.
Hard to imagine how we go to this point, right?</sarcasm>
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.
That’s right.
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 it’s not and that’s just as scary.”
And how!!!
Incorrect.
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"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2895880/posts
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?
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.