Which Candidate Can We Trust on Appointing Constitutionalist Judges?
Posted on January 28, 2008
With Rudy hinting at dropping out after Florida and Huckabee dropping like a rock in the polls, it looks like conservatives will be left with choosing Romney or McCain.
McCain gets a lot of support from military types with his status as a war hero, and he gets points with independents that are weary of socialists like Obama and Hillary. However, he has a long list of stabbing conservatives in the back.
Furthermore, just look at McCain’s “bi-partisan” nature.
Romney is the man on economics, and knows how to say all the right things. However, his history and flip-flops on social issues make quite a few conservatives very uneasy.
The choices that are left to conservatives are glum. So, pick what issue you feel the strongest about and go with the candidate you believe best on that issue. For most people that think fighting the ACLU and judicial tyranny are high priorities, an important question is: who can we trust to appoint constitutionalist judges that don’t write laws from the bench?
Lets not forget that McCain led the gang of 14. Mark Levin reminds everyone:
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
Remember the so-called nuclear option? Conservatives across this nation were waiting for that bomb to drop and we were thwarted by McCain and his “gang”. President Bush’s legacy will be defined by his court appointments and Democrats successfully rode out the Republican majority and thwarted Bush’s legacy thanks to McCain and his “gang of 14″.
How many of us can forget the Gang of 14 debacle? Remember that, ladies and gentlemen? The Gang of 14 “prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.” You never had to have 60 votes to get a judicial nominee approved. The Democrats started filibustering, you needed 60 votes. We were going to pull the trigger on the nuclear option to get rid of this once and for all and McCain rides in with Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty and others, to form the Gang of 14 — which, by the way, has expired, ladies and gentlemen. The Gang of 14 deal has expired now.
Ace is right on the mark here.
If you like Justices Kennedy and Souter and Breyer, you’re going to love President McCain. Because I see many such “consensus judges” with “solid bipartisan backing” being nominated by President McCain.
Quinn Hillyer gives a little history lesson on McCain’s record:
The blocking of Haynes remains the single worst example of Republican perfidy concerning judges. McCain and Graham’s actions were absolutely shameful. For Republican senators to block a Republican judicial nominee on spurious grounds, smearing him in the process, puts them in the same category as the Schumers, Leahys and Kennedys of the world. Frankly, it alone is disqualifying for the presidency.
Furthermore, I’ve watched McCain cave to the likes of the ACLU on too many issues.
There isn’t a very good argument to trust McCain on judicial appointments.
A much better argument for trust in this area can be made for Mitt Romney. Romney’s history of appointing judges in Mass is a mixed bag that is a little worrisome, however judicial appointments in Massachusetts work very differently than at the federal level. There are other factors that cause me to pick him as the lesser of two evils.
He has the endorsement and trust of the infamous conservative judge hated by the ACLU, Robert Bork:
Joining Romney for President, Judge Bork said, “Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today’s endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. He knows firsthand how the judicial branch can profoundly affect the future course of a state and a nation. I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court’s ruling legalizing same-sex ‘marriage.’ His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time.”
Judge Bork continued, “Our next President may be called upon to make more than one Supreme Court nomination, and Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation. I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States.”
He also has the endorsement of Jay Sekulow, Chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and devoted warrior against the ACLU:
Other big names include Rachel Brand, the former associate attorney general under Alberto Gonazles, Viet Dihn, another former senior Bush administration attorney, and the ubiquitous Victoria Toensing and Joseph DiGenova.
Check the jump for a full listing. Many of the names played large roles in the confirmation of Justices Alito and Roberts.
I think it’s a no-brainer on where the better argument is between these two on who can be trusted in guarding the constitution from the liberals.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Activist Judges, Elections, News, Politics As Usual, Supreme Court, Video
Trackback URL
Comments
17 Responses to “Which Candidate Can We Trust on Appointing Constitutionalist Judges?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I have pretty much resolved to referring to our next President as Barry/Hillary. I do not think that Republicans have a chance in Hell. Three Supremes will probably be selected and we will have Universal Healthcare shoved down our throats, too. Here’s a link to an article on my blog concerning a search that landed someone from Mexico at my site today. I am terrified about this November, I see 1978 repeating again and again as I sleep. Gas prices high? Try six dollar a gallon milk.
Link
Don’t forget David French’s work on behalf of Mitt.
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.com
The choice is pretty clear at this point and I don’t think Mitt is the “lesser of two evils.” Taken as a whole, Romney is a pretty solid candidate.
Notice how all of his “flips” (he hasn’t “flopped”) are all in the Right direction? Call it a sincere change of heart or accuse him opportunism, Mitt has come around on life and other issues to where he should be. Not only that, he has acknowledged his past positions, explained the rationale for change and has shown no indication that he will do anything to betray the core conservatives who are supporting him.
Everyone needs to quit their braying about McCain being “the only one that can win in the general election.” B-stinkin’-S. But the polls, man, the polls. Yeah, remember when Dukakis was up by 20 and when Mondale was neck-and-neck with Reagan? Don’t tell me about “the polls.”
Well, I really wish you could have written this one GF. This does worry me though.
http://www.confirmthem.com/what_would_president_romneys_judicial_nominations_look_like
I enjoyed watching the State of the Union address as president Bush talked about several programs. One that made the liberal not so happy was EARMARKS. He said he would veto any that are put in without Debate on the floor. He said about the children of America and how we had to get programs that work to help kids. Not one liberal Democrat clapped. Bush talked about Taxes and how to put more money in the pockets of Americans. Not one Liberal Democrat Clapped. So that show the above topics are not part of the Liberal Democrats future. Sitting here watching Nancy Polosie she can hardly keep her eyes open. She sure is not tired from doing any of work. As he just said we are spreading the hope for freedom around the world NOT ONE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CLAPPED OR STOOD UP! Now talking about how the terrorist in Iraq is no longer tolerated the Liberal Democrats again did not clap or stand up! The liberals again did nothing when the president said the terrorist will be defeated. NOT ONE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CLAPPED OR STANDED!. And he asked congresses to fully fund are troops. The liberals Democrats No clap No stand. And he also said we must not draw down are troops to fast because the terrorist will just take it over again. No liberal Democrat Claps, No liberal Democrat Standing! Setting her watching these and other topics president Bush talked about showed how the Democrats are the true Supporters of terrorists and do not want are troops to win. And they could care less about the kids in America. They do not want Americans to have more money in there pockets because it takes away from there pockets by there earmarks on Democrat Liberal pet programs As one Democrat said on the floor a few mouths ago “This is my money†. Someone needs to remind the Liberal Democrats that this is ARE TAX MONEY!
So I say to all reading this to go back watch the State of the Union address and see it for your self. The democrats are the new terrorist in are own country. You all on here may think this is a joke or a bunch of redirect but like I said go back review the Union Address and see it for ones self and come to your on conclusions.
You now have Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and other Liberal Democrats supporting Obama and that is great because the plan is and will be to showing the American people when its time to vote for are next president that this are the Liberal Democrats who want to raise Taxes steal are hard earned tax money with there improper earmarks by sneaking them into bills without any debate. They want to underfund the American troops who keep us safe and free everyday. We the people will not stand for this ideology to be spread into are country by these Liberal Democrats. The Democratic Party has gone a stray and is now more of a threat to are country then the terrorists are. That is sad!
The Clintons are now use race as a tool against Obama. And these are people in there on party. But I love to see the Clintons finally getting what they deserve and that is not to be in power ever again or any Democrat Liberal in power for that matter. It does not matter who wins the Nominations on the Liberal Democrat side they are going to lose.
I would love to run this country because I would not stand for anything that is not done to help the American people. And I think the president should be like one of use maybe more would get done with the saying of been there done that!
Jay–
Totally hear you brother. My degree of confidence on what happens in Nov. is ZERO.
However, if we want to bring our guns to the fight rather than point our Claymores the wrong way, we pick Mitt over McCrazy.
(BTW — are you kidding me? You didn’t need me to write this post. It was a pretty strong effort IMO.)
Because he ran a venture capital firm and has good speechwriters? Meh.
Hey Jeff–
Who now has better credentials than Romney on that issue?
There is not even an argument here.
I don’t expect you to believe me, but Ron Paul.
I’ll refer you back to this post when the dollar collapses and inflation is beyond Fed’s weak grasp.
Regardless of what you think of him, if you want a glimpse of the future, start learning some monetary policy.
It’s not pretty.
Oh, and Mitt’s big plan to end wasteful spending: the line-item veto. I don’t think so, chief. It was a bad idea when Clinton wanted it and it’s still a bad idea now.
Man up and veto a bad bill like the Constitution empowers you to do. The President doesn’t need more “tools”, he just needs the cajones to take Congress to task (and vice versa).
I favor Huckabee with the judges as he is strong on social conservative values and Romney apears to be a panderer even on economic issues. Romney basically bribed Michigan voters to back him by promising to subsidize the auto industry. In order to do that he will have to grow the federal deficit which will put us more in hock to foreign countries including those that fund terrorism.
I am a military spouse and I do not believe McCain will be strong on anything - he’s a liberal in sheeps’ clothing. Just because he served eons ago doesn’t mean he can relate to today’s struggles in the military. He’s stance on amnesty is the main reason I’m not voting for him. Yes, be able to work with the liberals, don’t cow to them !
Shocking response Jeff.
No, I don’t believe you Jeff. Ron Paul, while he and I agree on some things, is a kook.
What about his record makes him superior?
What about his record makes him (Ron Paul) superior on judicial appointments? Good gosh man, the fellow can’t talk without mentioning the Constitution! Without any question or doubt, if you seriously want to know who would appoint judges that would best do their job (interpret laws and weight them against the Constitution), there is no way anyone would do better than Ron Paul.
That’s his strength. He continuously asks, “Where does the Constitution authorize this?” He would unquestionable only appoint judges who would also ask that question.
I think McCain would only appoint judges who agree with him — including his opposition to the first and second amendments.
I think Romney would appoint judges as political favors and paybacks.
He’s spent his entire adult life studying economics; that’s what brought him to congress in the first place.
Like I said, I’ll refer you back to this post when the house of cards falls.
“Oh, and Mitt’s big plan to end wasteful spending: the line-item veto.”
False. It is ONE idea he has mentioned and it is not even close to a cornerstone of his economic plan. I don’t know that I agree completely with a pure line-item veto, but there should be ways in which a president may eliminate certain bad portions of otherwise decent bills. I agree with you about deep-sixing bad bills. But as you mention, the president already has veto power, so how it is a bold position to demand that he use existing power?
Veto? Have you checked Romney’s veto record as governor of MA? Obviously not.
Are you being dishonest Jeff or do you just not know Romney’s positions?
“Spent his life studying economics.”
So what? So has Paul Krugman. Utterly meaningless defense. Whatever Ron Paul knows from “studying economics” Romney knows from actually putting strong American economic principles into practice over 25 years. What you are saying is kind of like saying that since someone’s grandfather, who never served, has studied the military all his life, he should be made into a general over a decorated full-bird colonel. Makes no sense.
What exactly would Ron Paul do to prevent your gloom and doom scenario (collapse of the dollar and runaway inflation)? If everyone else is so yoked with kryptonite here, how is Ron Paul going to save us all?
How did a post about appointing judges turn into an economics debate? Anyway, Huckabee and Paul very well may be the best pick on appointing judges, but I was comparing two candidates, as I don’t believe Huckabee or Paul have any real chance now.
How can you even ask that question, Jay? Jeff Molby is in the HOUSE
Sorry, Jay. Didn’t mean to threadjack. Ya shouldn’t have dangled that tangent, though.
I don’t know what Romney’s record on vetoes is. Did actually veto many or did he just use the line item veto liberally?
The line item veto is just a bad bad idea. Good intention, but the unintended consequences would screw us worse than ever. We already have two branches legislating; you want the executive altering the law too?
We’ve already let the executive branch have waaaaay more power than it was ever intended to have. No doubt Hillary will usurp even more. I’m not about to give any of it willingly.
Micro-economics != Macro-economics. Very little of the experience he gained would be of any assistance as president. I’m sure he learned plenty of macro on his way to earning an MBA, but that was a long time ago and it was all the same Keynesian economics that got us into this mess.
I’m not saying Paul is some world-reknowned expert with unique insight, but you’re talking about a guy that earned Greenspan’s respect in a decade’s worth of banking committee hearings versus a guy that took some macro-econ classes back in school.
More importantly than that, though, is that Paul recognizes that there’s a structural problem. Mitt’s selling nothing by happiness and sunshine.
Our monetary policy depends on a strong dollar. If the dollar falls below a certain threshold, the central banks of the world will begin divesting their massive reserves of dollars. They’ll all come back here resulting in a crash of the dollar and insane inflation.
Yet, everyone just says “Yay! A weak dollar helps our exports!”
Step 1: Allow gold and silver to compete as currencies. No, I’m not talking about your grandpa’s gold standard.
Just some competition to keep the Fed honest. We’re in a precarious position because they inflate money supply at a rate of about 18% each year. The only reason that we don’t see a CPI increase of 18% is because most of the dollars disappear overseas. We’ll be ok as long as they don’t come back, but it’s senseless to continue that policy. Create some fair competition and the Fed will be forced to restrict the money supply to a more reasonable growth rate.
Step 2: Use the bulk of his political capital to restrain the growth of government.
- Veto new programs
- Freeze the growth existing programs.
- Set in motion plans to phase out existing programs, allowing the states and/or private sector to get involved as appropriate.
- Chip away at the $9 trillion debt that sucks up 20% of the entire budget (or HALF all personal income tax revenue) in annual interest.
That’s tough medicine, but that’s what it’ll take. No one, not even Romney, is talking that seriously. They all know it’s easier to win elections by singing happy songs.