BOSTON – Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has announced that he will appoint conservative judges to the federal bench if he wins the White House.
In a forum hosted by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Romney said he likes “strict constructionists” on the federal bench.
“I’d like people who recognize that their job is to protect the Constitution and to follow the Constitution as it was written and intended,” he said. “And to follow the laws of Congress as written and intended, rather than the Supreme Court seeing its role as springing from or departing from the Constitution.”
That statement echoes what Romney said during a 2008 California debate.
“I would approve justices – I would have favored justices like Roberts and Alito, Scalia and Thomas,” he said. “I like justices that follow the Constitution, do not make law from the bench. I would have much rather had a justice of that nature.”
Political analyst Steve Baldwin contends that Romney’s constitutional rhetoric is the product of his quest for the White House.
“When Gov. Romney first started to prepare himself to run for the presidency in 2004, the Romney team initiated an effort to schedule media appearances and speaking engagements for the governor focused on a number of themes important to conservatives, including judicial philosophy,” Baldwin said. “Much of this PR blitz had to do with the defense of traditional marriage, an issue on which Romney also misled conservatives as has been written elsewhere.”
The Hillary Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health decision forcing the issue of homosexual marriage was announced in November 2003. In response, Romney wrote a commentary on judicial activism for the Wall Street Journal.
He fired his first salvo in the battle over conservative judges in his Feb. 5, 2004, Journal commentary piece, “One man, one woman.”
“Beware of activist judges,” he wrote. “The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature’s job to pass laws.”
Romney extolled the virtue of the “balance of powers.”
“The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the Constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers,” Romney wrote.
“One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens.”
He continued his “conservative blitz.”
Quoting Romney, Baldwin said, “On June 22, 2004, Romney spoke before the United States Senate and stated that the ‘real threat is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage.’”
Baldwin noted that Romney didn’t stop there: “At the 2007 Family Research Council’s Voter Values Summit, Romney said, ‘I’ll appoint and fight for justices who follow the law and the Constitution and who understand judicial restraint and who won’t legislate from the bench.’”
Romney’s campaign staff continued to press the theme in 2008, by the design of the campaign website. Baldwin said the site theme was the Constitution.
“Romney’s 2008 campaign website likewise featured conservative judicial themes. ‘The Bill of Rights are under constant assault from activist judges,’ And that, ‘Romney will appoint judges who respect the Constitution and the rule of law, and will not legislate from the bench,’” Baldwin said, adding that Romney’s campaign had solid input from conservative judges.
“Romney campaign surrogates were tasked with placing articles in conservative publications that boasted about his alleged conservative judicial views. One such surrogate was Pepperdine University Constitutional Law Professor Douglas Kmiec, a Romney adviser on judicial issues and co-chair of Romney’s ‘Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts,’” he added.
Pepperdine constitutional Law professor and Romney legal adviser Douglas Kmiec wrote an Oct. 10, 2007, article for National Review Online trumpeting Romney’s promise to appoint judicial conservatives.
“Romney is pledged to name to the Supreme Court individuals with the intellectual qualities and philosophy of judicial restraint of Justice Scalia, Alito and Roberts,” Kmiec wrote.
He added a warning line: “We cannot afford a president who is only faking his attachment to conservative legal principle.”
Legal analysts say candidate Romney is different from Gov. Romney.
Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romney’s appointments were constitutional “living document” poster children.
“Many of Romney’s appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different?” Barber asked rhetorically.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Mitt Romney’s actions as governor scream from the rooftops that he cannot be trusted with this most important of presidential responsibilities.”
Barber cites two specific examples of Romney’s radical appointments.
“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney not only failed in this regard, he appointed a number of very liberal, if not radical, ‘living, breathing’-minded judges to the bench,” Barber said.
“Two that come to mind were extreme homosexualists Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany,” he said. “They both had a long history of pro-gay activism, yet Romney didn’t hesitate to put them on the bench.”
“These are people who outrageously believe the postmodern notion that newfangled ‘gay rights’ trump our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights,” he said.
Baldwin agreed, citing Romney’s statements about the two requirements he actually used when selecting judges.
“Romney did focus on two criteria: their legal experience and whether they would be tough on crime. In other words, the nominee could be a gay activist or a pro-big government, pro-quota, pro-gun control Democrat Party hack who detests every judicial principle treasured by our founding fathers,” Baldwin said. “But if he happens to be tough on crime and have prosecutorial experience, he gets past the Romney filter. Many of Romney’s nominees fit that description.”
Baldwin added that Romney did have some ideological criteria for many of his nominees:
“It was criteria commonly used by the left. For starters, his nominees were mostly pro-abortion. Indeed, while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney told the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) that his judicial nominees would more likely protect abortion rights than would those of a Democrat Governor, according to notes from a person attending this meeting.”
Another Romney criteria, Baldwin explained, was “diversity.”
“The other criteria consistently emphasized by Gov. Romney in deciding judicial selections was ‘diversity.’ This is the silly notion that judgeships should reflect the population in terms of race and gender and even sexual orientation, regardless of a person’s judicial philosophy,” he said. “Clearly, the use of diversity quotas demonstrates Romney’s lack of a coherent conservative worldview.”
Barber agreed with Baldwin’s assessment, adding that Romney’s record while governor is reason for concern, because the next president may radically reshape the federal bench.
“Our next president has the potential to appoint two, possibly even three Supreme Court justices,” Barber said. “This will influence the trajectory of law and public policy for decades to come. We absolutely must have a president who can be trusted to appoint ‘originalist’ judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution in the context of the founders’ original vision.”
Barber concluded, “If the Constitution is a ‘living, breathing’ document as President Obama believes, then it is rendered meaningless.”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/romney-judicial-record-liberals-running-wild/
Monday, January 30, 2012
CHUCK NORRIS SAYS NO TO MITT ROMULAN
think the mainstream media, or MSM, and Washington elite think the majority of voters just fell off the turnip truck. But the South Carolina primary election and other current voting trends show otherwise.
The MSM are working double time to get us to forget about the unprecedented results of the South Carolina primary election, but they are a sign of what could be in Florida, Nevada and beyond. They are also proof that American citizens will not be outwitted by the political shenanigans of the powers that be. Let me give you a few examples.
Despite that ABC paraded Newt’s bitter ex-wife across their airways two nights before the South Carolina election, Newt won women’s votes by 36 percent to 30 percent over Romney. And married women and evangelical women both backed Gingrich with 40 percent support. (Women in general backed Newt 38 percent, and men were 42 percent in support of him.)
Despite (or maybe, on account of) Mitt’s Massachusetts creation of Romneycare and promises for Social Security’s perpetuity, Newt gained 47 percent of the vote (to Mitt’s 36 percent) among those ages 65 and older.
Despite the MSM’s attempt to convey Newt as old and outdated, he received 27 percent of votes from among those 18-29 years of age, only being beaten by Ron Paul’s 32 percent.
Despite the MSM’s and Washington elite’s campaign to convey that Newt would be dangerous to the country and world, 39 percent of U.S. veterans voted for Newt, compared to 32 percent for Romney.
Despite that Romney spent millions on ads in South Carolina to persuade voters that Newt was an ethically compromised Washington insider, Newt won 45 percent of GOP electorate votes, while Rick Santorum and Romney trailed with 23 and 20 percent.
Despite the MSM’s pro-Romney coverage and six years of Romney’s campaigning, Newt stole 31 percent of moderates’ votes from the Massachusetts’ moderate.
Despite Romney’s often-flaunted business credentials, eight in 10 voters who said they were very worried about the direction of the economy also voted for Newt by a double-digit lead over Romney. Hence, the New York Times also described Newt as South Carolina’s “preferred candidate for people who said they were … falling behind financially.” That is because Newt has actually helped lead the federal government during two of the greatest economic booming eras in our country’s history.
Despite that 120 evangelical leaders met recently in Texas and claimed to have come to a consensus backing Rick Santorum, the initial vote of those leaders split almost evenly between Newt and Santorum, 48-57 votes, according to CBN News Chief Political Correspondent. I don’t think it’s coincidental that a similar 45 percent of evangelicals also voted for Newt in his landslide South Carolina victory. Forty-five percent of pro-lifers also voted for Newt, compared to just 21 percent for Romney.
Despite the MSM’s and some social conservatives’ onslaught to make Newt out to be a reckless immoral politician, evangelical voters understand that, while not condoning adultery and divorce, they are not fatal but forgivable by God. Evangelical voters understand that family values are redeemable and renewable among contrite souls who have suffered from relational failures.
North Carolina was such a landslide election that the New York Times confessed, “Mr. Gingrich was supported by men and women alike, evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics, those who support the tea party and those who are neutral about it.”
Even in Florida, Newt’s populous popularity is evident by the size of his audiences. Despite that Washington heavyweights like John McCain and Bob Dole have come out to endorse Romney, in a drive that the Boston Globe described as “GOP insiders rise up to cut Gingrich down to size,” the Los Angeles Times reported last week: “Newt Gingrich winning the crowd contest in Florida.”
The Times explained, “The former House speaker drew enormous crowds on Tuesday in the Sunshine State, the final one attracting more than 5,000 people. On the same day, Romney drew about 150 people to a closed speech in Tampa and addressed about 300 people outside a foreclosed house in southwest Florida later in the day.”
And despite that Romney and his cronies have spent, and will spend, millions and millions of more dollars in Florida and Nevada to perforate Newt’s character and record again, which NewsMax explains in Florida alone is 20 times what has been spent there in supporting any other Republican candidate, I am believing that voters will neither be bought by his money nor directed by his political spin and rhetoric, just as those in South Carolina didn’t fall for the fool’s gold.
One final proof came last week via the triple-gang of the MSM, Romney and Washington elites. They all pounced again on Newt, claiming he is not a Reagan conservative. But they were discounted again, as President Reagan’s eldest son, Mike, who has also endorsed Newt, joined radio talk-show legend Rush Limbaugh by lambasting Newt’s critics. Mike said, “I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.” And Limbaugh added, “That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much.”
NewsMax also reported, in a 1995 speech at a dinner honoring Ronald Reagan, former first lady Nancy Reagan said: “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.’”
There’s a reason 34 percent of those who voted for Newt in South Carolina said they “strongly supported” the tea party, dispelling another MSM myth (or is that a wish?) that the tea party’s influence has dwindled. Thirty-one percent of independents also voted for Newt.
To the naysayers of Newt, Theodore Roosevelt has a wise word, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
I think it’s time again that “We the People” showed the media and Washington elite exactly who is in charge.
South Carolinians were not duped by the titans of political swing.
Floridians and Nevada patriots, don’t you let them manipulate and muscle your vote either.
Here are seven other ways to help you stay the course:
1) Please post this article to your Facebook and Twitter accounts, and email it to those you know in Florida and Nevada (the next caucuses)
2) Sign up to be part of the Faith Coalition.
3) Please keep Newt Gingrich and his team in your daily prayers. We believe that he is the leader “for such a time as this,” and they all covet your prayers.
4) Here is the new link to the American Family Association’s online non-partisan voter guide to help you examine the differences between the four remaining GOP candidates.
5) Here is also a link to a conference call made last week between Newt and a few of the highly respected Christian leaders who were also a part of that Texas gathering of evangelical leaders.
6) For other reasons why my wife, Gena, and I are endorsing Newt Gingrich for GOP nominee and president, see my last column, “My endorsement for president.”
7) Mostly, don’t be missing in action at the polls this week! Your vote counts!
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/proof-voters-smarter-than-media-washington-elite/
The MSM are working double time to get us to forget about the unprecedented results of the South Carolina primary election, but they are a sign of what could be in Florida, Nevada and beyond. They are also proof that American citizens will not be outwitted by the political shenanigans of the powers that be. Let me give you a few examples.
Despite that ABC paraded Newt’s bitter ex-wife across their airways two nights before the South Carolina election, Newt won women’s votes by 36 percent to 30 percent over Romney. And married women and evangelical women both backed Gingrich with 40 percent support. (Women in general backed Newt 38 percent, and men were 42 percent in support of him.)
Despite (or maybe, on account of) Mitt’s Massachusetts creation of Romneycare and promises for Social Security’s perpetuity, Newt gained 47 percent of the vote (to Mitt’s 36 percent) among those ages 65 and older.
Despite the MSM’s attempt to convey Newt as old and outdated, he received 27 percent of votes from among those 18-29 years of age, only being beaten by Ron Paul’s 32 percent.
Despite the MSM’s and Washington elite’s campaign to convey that Newt would be dangerous to the country and world, 39 percent of U.S. veterans voted for Newt, compared to 32 percent for Romney.
Despite that Romney spent millions on ads in South Carolina to persuade voters that Newt was an ethically compromised Washington insider, Newt won 45 percent of GOP electorate votes, while Rick Santorum and Romney trailed with 23 and 20 percent.
Despite the MSM’s pro-Romney coverage and six years of Romney’s campaigning, Newt stole 31 percent of moderates’ votes from the Massachusetts’ moderate.
Despite Romney’s often-flaunted business credentials, eight in 10 voters who said they were very worried about the direction of the economy also voted for Newt by a double-digit lead over Romney. Hence, the New York Times also described Newt as South Carolina’s “preferred candidate for people who said they were … falling behind financially.” That is because Newt has actually helped lead the federal government during two of the greatest economic booming eras in our country’s history.
Despite that 120 evangelical leaders met recently in Texas and claimed to have come to a consensus backing Rick Santorum, the initial vote of those leaders split almost evenly between Newt and Santorum, 48-57 votes, according to CBN News Chief Political Correspondent. I don’t think it’s coincidental that a similar 45 percent of evangelicals also voted for Newt in his landslide South Carolina victory. Forty-five percent of pro-lifers also voted for Newt, compared to just 21 percent for Romney.
Despite the MSM’s and some social conservatives’ onslaught to make Newt out to be a reckless immoral politician, evangelical voters understand that, while not condoning adultery and divorce, they are not fatal but forgivable by God. Evangelical voters understand that family values are redeemable and renewable among contrite souls who have suffered from relational failures.
North Carolina was such a landslide election that the New York Times confessed, “Mr. Gingrich was supported by men and women alike, evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics, those who support the tea party and those who are neutral about it.”
Even in Florida, Newt’s populous popularity is evident by the size of his audiences. Despite that Washington heavyweights like John McCain and Bob Dole have come out to endorse Romney, in a drive that the Boston Globe described as “GOP insiders rise up to cut Gingrich down to size,” the Los Angeles Times reported last week: “Newt Gingrich winning the crowd contest in Florida.”
The Times explained, “The former House speaker drew enormous crowds on Tuesday in the Sunshine State, the final one attracting more than 5,000 people. On the same day, Romney drew about 150 people to a closed speech in Tampa and addressed about 300 people outside a foreclosed house in southwest Florida later in the day.”
And despite that Romney and his cronies have spent, and will spend, millions and millions of more dollars in Florida and Nevada to perforate Newt’s character and record again, which NewsMax explains in Florida alone is 20 times what has been spent there in supporting any other Republican candidate, I am believing that voters will neither be bought by his money nor directed by his political spin and rhetoric, just as those in South Carolina didn’t fall for the fool’s gold.
One final proof came last week via the triple-gang of the MSM, Romney and Washington elites. They all pounced again on Newt, claiming he is not a Reagan conservative. But they were discounted again, as President Reagan’s eldest son, Mike, who has also endorsed Newt, joined radio talk-show legend Rush Limbaugh by lambasting Newt’s critics. Mike said, “I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.” And Limbaugh added, “That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much.”
NewsMax also reported, in a 1995 speech at a dinner honoring Ronald Reagan, former first lady Nancy Reagan said: “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.’”
There’s a reason 34 percent of those who voted for Newt in South Carolina said they “strongly supported” the tea party, dispelling another MSM myth (or is that a wish?) that the tea party’s influence has dwindled. Thirty-one percent of independents also voted for Newt.
To the naysayers of Newt, Theodore Roosevelt has a wise word, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
I think it’s time again that “We the People” showed the media and Washington elite exactly who is in charge.
South Carolinians were not duped by the titans of political swing.
Floridians and Nevada patriots, don’t you let them manipulate and muscle your vote either.
Here are seven other ways to help you stay the course:
1) Please post this article to your Facebook and Twitter accounts, and email it to those you know in Florida and Nevada (the next caucuses)
2) Sign up to be part of the Faith Coalition.
3) Please keep Newt Gingrich and his team in your daily prayers. We believe that he is the leader “for such a time as this,” and they all covet your prayers.
4) Here is the new link to the American Family Association’s online non-partisan voter guide to help you examine the differences between the four remaining GOP candidates.
5) Here is also a link to a conference call made last week between Newt and a few of the highly respected Christian leaders who were also a part of that Texas gathering of evangelical leaders.
6) For other reasons why my wife, Gena, and I are endorsing Newt Gingrich for GOP nominee and president, see my last column, “My endorsement for president.”
7) Mostly, don’t be missing in action at the polls this week! Your vote counts!
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/proof-voters-smarter-than-media-washington-elite/
G K TEMUJIN SAYS NO TO FLIP FLOPPER WILLARD MITT ROMNEY
Mitt [ RINO ] Romney is no conservative . Any who says they are conservative and support him is no real conservative. Come on Florida send this loser packing. You but him in the general election you have Obama light. Obama wins no contest you can vote for real liberal , not a weather vane. Bob Dole & John McCain losers. Rick [ BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERATIVE OXYMORON ] Santorum time for you to get out & go home.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Tim Thomas skips visit, says government out of control
Tim Thomas skips visit, says government out of control
Tim Thomas, one of two Americans on the Bruins' roster, chose not to attend today's ceremony at the White House, saying he believes the federal government is “out of control.”
Thomas issued the following statement about his absence: "I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers[sic] vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL."
Tim Thomas, one of two Americans on the Bruins' roster, chose not to attend today's ceremony at the White House, saying he believes the federal government is “out of control.”
Thomas issued the following statement about his absence: "I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers[sic] vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL."
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
