Mitt Romney for President,
About Us
Contact Us
Donate to Mitt Romney Campaign

Mitt Romney on the Issues
Videos Mitt Romney
Help Mitt Romney

Thursday, January 24, 2008
posted by Kyle Hampton | 8:29 PM | permalink
There has been a lot of discussion about the Courts and judges today in the blogoshpere (Hugh, NRO Editors, Andy McCarthy, Marc Ambinder, Ramesh Ponnuru, Andy McCarthy again, Mark Levin, and Brad Smith). This is definitely one of the subjects where there is a difference between Romney, McCain, and Giuliani. Being a law student (my last semester, thankfully), this is a subject that I am passionate about. I have written before about what kind of judges each of these candidates would nominate. I find the most telling indicators are the issues that these candidates have gone to the courts to advocate.

Rudy went to the Supreme Court to fight against the line item veto. Some may yawn at the line item veto issue, but coupled with statements that Giuliani has made about his view of “strict constructionist” judges, a very troubling trend emerges. I wrote back in October:
Second, and I think even more illuminating, is who Rudy thinks is a “strict constructionist”. Apparently Rudy’s idea of a “strict constructionist” is someone who could come out either way on abortion, finds that the constitution mandates taxpayer funding of abortions, and agrees that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. This “strict constructionist” judge of Rudy’s looks more and more to me like John Paul Stevens, who was nominated by a Republican President, Gerald Ford. Of course Justice Stevens would be nobody’s idea of a “strict constructionist”, routinely finding in favor of race-based school classifications, abortion rights, and other “rights” found nowhere in the Constitution’s text. Certainly Rudy’s idea of a “strict constructionist” is not what Republican voters are looking for.
McCain fought against Wisconsin Right to Life to preserve the limitations on speech imposed by campaign finance reform. Campaign finance reform turns the First Amendment on its head, prioritizing the regulation of money over the freedom of speech and the political advocacy it was designed to protect. I wrote back in June:

McCain should be embarrassed for supporting such a blatant infringement of the First Amendment. While his concern with political corruption is laudable, silencing political speech is directly prohibited by the First Amendment, and certainly is not the method to avoid corruption. That McCain would choose to sacrifice free speech for the sake of political candidates is indefensible.
Romney went to the court to defend traditional marriage. After the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court declaring gay marriage a right, Romney went to the court to force the legislature to allow the citizens of Massachusetts to vote on the issue. The Washington Post describes Romney’s efforts:
Romney said he will ask a justice of the state's Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers do not vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the current session.

Romney has criticized lawmakers since they refused earlier this month to take up the question during a joint session, voting instead to recess, all but killing the measure.

"A decision not to vote is a decision to usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy and substitute a form of what this nation's founders called tyranny, that is, the imposition of the will of those in power, on the people," Romney said earlier. "The issue now before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the Constitution."

Labels: , ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Sense
  • DiggCourt Sense
  • Fark:Court Sense
  • Furl:Court Sense
  • Ma.gnolia:Court Sense
  • Netscape:Court Sense
  • NewsVine:Court Sense
  • Reddit:Court Sense
  • Slashdot:Court Sense
  • StumbleUpon:Court Sense
  • TailRank:Court Sense
  • Technorati:Court Sense
  • YahooMyWeb:Court Sense

Technorati Tags: |

I think the best way to judge a judge is to look at thr rationale behind their decisions to see if they stick to the science of the Constitution and arrive at decisions based on a logial path rather than an emotional path.I mean hate crimes should be thrown out on their ear because of equal protection and punishing thought.The emotional side says minorities,gays jews etc. have all been crapped on by society so they need super protection under the law. So if you see these social justice themes as a basis for a decision that's a disqualifier.It's political activism..I don't like hearing somone say that I would appoint a Scialia or Roberts or Alito type judge or even a "constructionist" model. Would rather see a judge be appointed through adherence to the law. How could one judge on prop 187 thrawrt the will of the people? Or one judge stop the government from issuing social securty "no match letters"?

Sign up for MyManMitt
Enter your email address:

RSS Feed
Mitt Romney Facebook MyManMitt
Mitt Romney YouTube

Copyright 2007