Skip to comments.Supreme Court possibilities if Romney wins election
Posted on 10/01/2012 4:25:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Dont get excited but Romney has a record of appointing liberal judges not conservatives.
As opposed to 0bama who appoints whom?
This is the type of reaction CNN hopes it gets.
It was pretty nice today down here in North Texas, how was the weather in Chicago?
If Bush appointed Roberts, one can only imagine...
I read through the entire list.
I would prefer that someone with extensive experience in a US Circuit Court of Appeals get the nomination. There will be a record of his/her decisions to evaluate.
Nominating anyone else is just political payback (I’m looking at you, Obama and Kagan).
Romney has a history of liberal judges, so who knows really.
Clement, Kavanaugh, Brown, and Lee are supposed to be staunch Conservatives and maybe Sykes while the others are new to me. Lee is newly elected to Senate and appears to be making strong Conservative waves. Surprised that CNN would be publishing this list because I would expect them to be pushing the selection of more leftist prospective nominees to SC. All in all, the names here are pretty darn good. But, we all remember what John Roberts has done.
Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed by President Reagan, I don’t recall her being a hard-core conservative.
Supreme Court possibilities if Obama is reelected
If Romney were like Reagan you would have a point, Romney is a liberal so you don’t.
Don’t even want to look, I know the type he will appoint, they infest the law schools.
Dont get excited but Romney has a record of appointing liberal judges not conservatives.
What was the procedure for Romney to appoint judges in MA? Was he free to pick anyone that he wanted to or was he bound to a list of some number supplied by a governmental commission? Makes lot of difference in what his choices may have been. Do you know the procedure that was in place?
President Reagan was once an FDR Democrat.
He’ll have to walk over to Pizza Uno and ask a supervisor.
Reagan was a conservative democrat, and became a conservative Republican - he was always a conservative.
Romney was a liberal democrat and became a liberal Republican - he was always a liberal, and still is.
Pay close attention to the word âunofficialâ, the âwho can we get past the Senateâ Repub thinking, vs. the âwe are going to ram our nominee down your throatâ dems thinking are not in play when projecting your link. I am sure Nixon’s pre-election nominees looked like Jefferson and Madison clones, yet look what happened, lol.
It is best not to go back to WWII to attack Reagan in defense of the anti-Reagan Mitt Romney.
HTML + “” +spell check = lol
Pay close attention to the word “unofficial”, the “who can we get past the Senate” Repub thinking, vs. the “we are going to ram our nominee down your throat” dems thinking are not in play when projecting your link.
Any GOP MASS’ers familiar with your system care to weigh in and explain it?
We do know that as Governor, Mitt only tried to get liberal judges appointed, so liberal, that only 1 out of 4 of his choices were even republicans.
President Reagan was a Democrat long after WWII. I grew up in California when he was governor.
I lived under Republican Governor Reagan also.
You are making a mistake to go back to WWII, and a time long ago, in a world far, far, away, of the 1930s and 40s, to attack Reagan to protect the current liberal candidate Romney, who was anti-Reagan and anti-conservative, and who was only 1 year old, the the last time Reagan made a vote for a democrat president, in 1948.
Romney came along when Reagan was emerging as a conservative leader, and then Romney left the party when Reagan took over the party and was becoming president, Romney is a post 1960s pro-abortion liberal, not a WWII era democrat.
Let’s say all that is true. He’s still 200X better than an avowed Marxist like Barack Hussein Obama, which is why the realists are pulling the lever for Romney.
Romney chose his own appointments to go before the board, the board was known as non-partisan, and was not concerned with party identification.
It is all true, Reagan and Romney have nothing in common, they represent two different parts of the political spectrum, one a famous conservative hero, and the other a lifetime liberal who has always resented and despised the conservative part of the GOP.
Did you ever reveal who you plan to vote for?
Did you ever learn how to not make things personal, my posts here are very clear, and factual.
Using Reagan is no way to promote your man.
Do you know the procedure that was in place?”
No I do not
Whatever kind of shitfit anger causes you to create sentences that kind of deranged, keep doing it, because it is funny.
From the time when he was an intern, and stormed off the convention floor with his father in 1964, in protest against Goldwater, and conservatives, to his leaving the GOP in 1979 in protest against Reagan and conservatives, to his becoming a democrat supporter, fund raiser and voter during the H.W. Bush years, it is a sad tale.
“Romneys first chief legal council, Daniel B. Winslow, who served from 2002 to 2004, established a non-partisan process for vetting judges through the Judicial Nominating Commission that was touted as a national model, because the primary application was judged blindly. That meant name, race, gender, and party affiliation, were not known during the initial review. Party affiliation was never a consideration, he said.
People with political agendas really arent suitable for judgeships, said Winslow, a former district court judge who is now a Republican legislator from Norfolk.
Winslow said that during the two years he served in the administration, the major reason Romney had few Republican appointments was a result of the talent pool.
The fact is that there simply arent a lot of conservative lawyers in Massachusetts who were available for judgeships, he said. The pool of applicants was very low in many respects.
Near the end of Romneys term, in 2006, that he stripped the Judicial Nominating Commission of many of its powers, allowing his administration to put a more direct stamp on the judiciary, as he prepared to run for president.”
Maybe he’ll convince david souter to return?
He should show some balls and nominate Judge Roy Moore, soon to have his old job back as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Or if not Moore, Judge Andrew Napolitano would make a great justice.
I never trusted Roberts. He was too green, too unknown. The only thing I could find out on him when he was nominated by Bush was once he has represented a group of sodomites when their case made it to the Supreme Court. He did it pro bono.
The second I found that out I knew he would another liberal and that is exactly what he is. And to make matters worse Bush made this green, unknown judge the Chief Justice, passing over Alito, Scalia and hell everyone else on the court who was senior to him.
There are three living retired justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, and David Souter. They may be designated to sit on panels of the United States Courts of Appeals, but never sit as members of the Supreme Court itself.
I never trusted Bush, except to institute the tools to empower the left. From Homeland Security to the TCA he was a poseur from the get-go, blinding too many conservatives with a transparent "pro-life" pitch. Yet he really didn't do that much to stop the death machine. He could have set the Justice Department on Planned Parenthood on any number of truly legitimate premises, and didn't do it.
This is one reason I think the abortion cause has functioned as a Tar Baby of sorts. While the pro-life movement fights that one battle to the expense of too much, the left institutes a huge number of equally vile sexual procedures, especially in reproductive endocrinology and early homosexual childhood education.
Don’t post behind people’s backs, and don’t drag baggage from thread to thread.
A lot of us were surprised to learn that Laura Bush is pro-abortion, and for homosexual "marriage".
Something is rotten in the gop-e.
When did Jim sell you Free Republic? What’d that run you?
There are certain behaviors that are expected here for no-trolls, one is pinging people that you are attacking, and another is to not cross threads and drag threads from one to another.
They don’t want FR to degenerate into a bunch of never ending personal grudges and old ladies making personal attacks that continue and hijack thread after thread.
Who would want such a thing, and who is so childish, that they would do such behavior? This is a political forum for adults.
He’s basically a jag-off who hates anyone and anything connected in anyway to the Mormon Church. If Tea Party stalwart Mike Lee were the nominee, he’d have nothing good to say about him for the same reason.
Just driving by, this caught my eye.
You actually believe what you write?
I mean, really?
The times that I am reading through a thread, and run across your posts, seems they are nothing but the same old garbage, dragged from thread to thread, like a dead horse, only on a bring out the dead cart, to make transportation a bit easier.
Does nothing but stink up thread after thread, day after day, SOS, same old garbage.
But, you know, I have learned to spot your comments from the other end. It is a good thing.
That is not true at all.
JR has addressed that when another poster tried your tactic.He made it clear that the poster was incorrect.
This is a political forum, of course you see our posts on politics, posting on politics is what this forum is all about.
Even when you have a different view from the facts that are posted.
Bush was also never pro-life, believing in aborting babies if he didn’t like who the father was. In otherwords kill the baby and let the rapist live. He also went against Pope John Paul who was 100% against the boneheaded invasion of Iraq. How many American lives have been lost to that trillion dollar turkey shoot? Afganistan I agreed with, but it could have been turned into a parking lot in less than a month. If he had wanted to really go after the people that caused 9/11, from flying the planes into the buildings to financing the attack, he would have attacked Saudi Arabia, and taken every damn drop of their oil. Think gas would be around $4 a gallon if we controlled Saudi’s oilfields. If I remember right Bush never vetoed a spending bill of any type until his last few months in office. The plan truth of the matter is he gave the country the socialist Obummer. If Bush had governed like a conservative and had also chosen a replacement instead of a mentor in Cheney, Obummer would have never been elected.
Post behind your back? Every other post on this thread is by you, I’m sure you caught mine, seeing how you answered it. And me dragging baggage into this thread? You practically post the same thing everyday to a different person. Talk about baggage!
Why waste time on the obvious?
You know to ping someone when you are attacking them, and you must know that posting political data and information and even political opinions on various threads is totally different from carrying personal attacks from thread to thread.
This thread is about Romney and judge appointments.
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.