|
 |
Posted on 04/25/2012 8:32:10 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Summary: Mitt Romney’s record as Governor does not indicate a commitment to a conservative judicial philosophy.
His judge appointees revealed at best “no philosophical or partisan pattern” (Boston Globe), or at worst a liberal and even radical tilt. He sought out feminists and radical homosexual groups in his judicial selection process. He was inconsistent in his pronouncements on judicial activism, allowing it to occur under his watch (with “gay marriage”) while simultaneously urging others to fight it. How then could we expect him to keep his recent promises to appoint constitutional conservatives to the bench if he is elected President? . . . . . The Boston GLBT newspaper Bay Windows happily catalogued Romney’s “gay” appointees, knowing that they would use their offices to promote their causes. Their “sexual orientation” was not just a private matter, as Romney would have us believe, but carried a political agenda. The lead attorney for “gay marriage” in Massachusetts explained, “As feminists in the 1970s rightly noted, and other civil rights and social justice movements found out, the personal is political, or at least it can become so.” [10] Yet as Governor, Romney chose to ignore this obvious fact.
Romney appointed at least two homosexual activist judges, and even bragged about it:
I’ve appointed approximately 60 judges, one or two of whom... one of whom I’m quite confident is gay, the other may be gay as well. I think he probably is, and there may be more for all I know. But I’ve never asked a judicial candidate, “are you gay?” and discriminated against them on that basis. Nor, if I look in their resume and there’s an indication of their being gay,
(Excerpt) Read more at amycontrada.com ...
|
|
Of course he can’t be trusted!
To the headline: no he can not, and it doesn’t matter anymore because he has been crowned the winner.
“To the headline: no he can not, and it doesn’t matter anymore because he has been crowned the winner.”
There’s still work to do. We have to be sure anyone but Mitt wins the election. ANYONE.
Possibly manipulated into it.
“Don’t feed the Obama troll.”
It appears your logic is somewhat clouded.
You post several articles a day critical of Romney.
Romney will be the nominee.
If you don’t want Romney... what’s left?
You, coming from a blue state, in the midst of all those liberals, I have to wonder, maybe YOU are the Obama troll? The left often accuses the opposition of doing exactly what they, themselves are trying to do. (Tip of the hat to Jim Quinn).
“Sorry, but all anyone has to do is look at your posting record and your posts about supporting Obama to see that you are the Obama troll.”
If anyone applies logic, and looks at what you’re posting, I think you win the troll award.
I would bet someone very close to Mitt Romney (ie, immediate family) is gay. His sympathies are too intense for it to be a matter of abstract belief.
Romney will appoint the very same candidates that Obama would appoint. It’s already proven by his past appointments.
This cheetah (should be pronounced Cheater) will not be changing his spots if elected so if anyone is thinking he will they should buy a bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn.
Can i get in on this?You are the troll,
No, you are the troll,
No, both of you are the troll.
You were a troll before troll was invented.
You are such a troll, trolls are afraid to cross your bridge.
Obama sucks, but Mittens sucks worse.
He is the sucker of suckdom, complete suckee, or would that be sucker?
This is fun!
“This is fun!”
That makes you the troll of all trolls. You are to trolls what Adam was to humanity.
As for who Romney will appoint when he is no longer constrained by the vagaries of the Massachusetts judicial appointment system, which required the approval of an all-Democratic committee to be effective, we can't know for sure. He didn't have the chance to appoint any justices to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and ideology tends to matter less for lower court appointments.
So the bottom line is that we can't be certain that Romney will appoint conservatives, but we do know that Obama will appoint liberals. Seems there's only one way to go if you're a betting man.
You get the government you deserve."
But you advocate ensuring that anyone but Mitt wins the election. That means (in practical terms) you advocate Obama win, since there are only two realistic choices at this point.
It appears you want all of us to have the government you deserve.
As for me, I do see a difference between Romney (who will be have to at least listen to conservatives, but probably will have to act conservative) and Obama (who will have no practical limits if re-elected). See my tag line.
“As for me, I do see a difference between Romney (who will be have to at least listen to conservatives, but probably will have to act conservative) and Obama (who will have no practical limits if re-elected). See my tag line.”
The official FR party line is anyone but Mitt. Don’t vote Obama, don’t vote Romney. Write in Palin.
I assume if enough of us do that Obama will win, and the GOPe will be taught a lesson!
Openly supporting Romney is strongly discouraged here.
“4. What’s left is voting your conservative principles (with you I think they are probably more like suggestions than principles) and voting for either a third-party actual conservative in the POTUS position or writing in and finding acceptable CONSERVATIVE republicans in down-ticket races.”
Ah ha! There you have it. Take people who would normally vote Republican, and encourage them to vote for someone who will not win, thus negating their vote. The result?!
You sir, are an Obama troll.
Good day.
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.