Yeah, Romney cares so much about too much spending that he signed socialized medicine and cap & trade into law in Massachusetts. So much that he defended the bailouts. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
And have you taken a good look at how awful his court picks in Massachusetts were? Here’s a 2005 excerpt from the Boston Globe:
“Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters (75%) of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents – including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.
Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show.”
That doesn’t even come close to George W. Bush in my book. With Romney at the helm, the GOP will look the other way when he nominates another liberal to the SCOTUS, even if we flip the Senate.
Of course it doesn't. Dubya had an overwhelmingly GOP legislature in Texas (where Supreme Court judges are elected anyway), and a GOP Senate as President.
Here's the deal with what Romney faced:
When Mitt Romney was elected as the 70th governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, he entered office with the unenviable predicament of being a Republican governor, in a state with only 12% of its citizens registered as Republicans, and having Democrat majorities in both chambers of the Massachusetts legislature.
In addition, Romney was faced with the reality that every judicial pick he made as governor would go for approval before the Governor’s Council, where Democrats held 8 of 9 seats. It was going to be extremely difficult for Romney to turn the Massachusetts court system in a more conservative direction.
http://gopprimary2012.com/a-look-at-romneys-judicial-philosophy-conservative-reform-in-the-most-liberal-state/
Read the article -- he appointed Republicans in an amount disproporationately high to their representation among voters, appointing 9 Republicans and 14 Democrats in a state where Democrats outnumbered Republicans 3-1.
In addition, Romney’s attempts to turn the Massachusetts courts right can be seen in the appointment of Christopher Moore to chair the Judicial Nominating Commission. Christopher Moore is a conservative who is a member of the Federalist Society, which fights against judicial activism. As chair of the Judicial Nominating Commission, Moore was in an excellent position to ensure he could limit the selection of liberal activist judges who would legislate from the bench.
As a conservative lawyer myself, I can tell you that the left hates the Federalist Society with a passion, and there is no way any Democrat, including Obama, would appoint a member of the Society to head a Judicial Nominations Committee. Of course, the Governor's Council that had to approve nominees was elected, so he had no control over that, and all his nominees had to get through that overwhelmingly Democratic (and hard left) Council.
Just read the article. Romney is not the second coming of Antonin Scalia, and he's not the most conservative guy in this race, but there is no reason to believe he could possibly be worse in terms of judicial appointments than Obama, and every reason to believe he will be an improvement. If he leans towareds preferring members of the Federalist Society, that is about as reliable an indicator as you can get.