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 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 don’t like Mitt Romney, but he’s 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?
Your delusional.
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.
Thanks Clintonfatigued.
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.