Obama’s choices: Gird your loins
Conservatives in Washington are gearing up for the SCOTUS battle. My legal sources have compiled sketches of Obama’s top three likely picks and their records. Gird your loins:
Elena Kagan
“Dean Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be concerning given her complete lack of judicial or appellate experience. She has never been a judge or even argued a case in a court of appeals. It is difficult to see how her experience fundraising for Harvard Law School qualifies her for a seat on the Nation’s high court.
-Dean Kagan has taken positions that are disturbingly out of the mainstream. For example, driven by her view that the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy adopted by a Democrat Congress and President Clinton is “a profound wrong–a moral injustice of the first order,” she argued that it violates the First Amendment for the United States to withhold funds from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this view.
-It is also unclear that a Justice Kagan would be an adequately independent check on executive excesses. She has argued in favor of greatly enhanced presidential control over the bureaucracy, which is concerning in light of President Obama’s unprecedented centralization of power in the White House.
-Dean Kagan has argued that nominees to the Supreme Court should undergo a searching inquiry into the nominee’s substantive views of the law, and should comment particular issues. If nominated, it will be interesting to see whether Dean Kagan remains faithful to this prescription in answering the Committee’s questions.”
Sonia Sotomayor
“Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.
-Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”
-Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.
-Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”
Diane Wood
-If nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Wood will have some substantial questions to answer regarding her judicial philosophy based on her work as a circuit court judge.
Judge Wood’s judicial views have on occasion been far outside mainstream legal thought and appear driven by her personal policy views. In NOW v. Scheidler, she wrote an opinion applying RICO – a statute designed for mob prosecutions – to prevent pro-life activists from engaging in protests. The Supreme Court reversed with Justices Ginsburg’s and Breyer’s concurrence. NOW v. Scheidler, 537 U.S. 393, 402 (2003).
-Judge Wood has betrayed a consistent hostility to religious litigants and religious interests. For example, Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 867 (7th Cir. 2006), she would have voted to allow a public university to revoke the student organization charter of the Christian Legal Society because it declined to extend membership to homosexuals.
She also authored an opinion refusing to allow prisons to require inmate participation in drug rehabilitation programs that used “explicit religious content,” even where such programs were the only ones available, effectively allowing inmates to refuse treatment entirely. Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996).”
***
Ed Morrissey: “After the dust settles, the court will be in exactly the same position as it is now, but in the meantime the GOP will have had an opportunity to show Obama as no post-partisan moderate but as a liberal idealogue. Elections do have consequences — and so do appointments.”
Indeed.
William Jacobson in the Green Room: “…ironically, Specter’s defection may give Republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level, so the nominees never get out of committee.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Souter’s retirement: High risk, moderate reward for Obama
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Souter’s retirement: High risk, moderate reward for Obama
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Souter’s retirement: High risk, moderate reward for Obama
- Jules Crittenden » A Reverse Souter, I Entreat Thee
- Obama’s M.O. with Americans who disagree with him: ridicule - Saul Alinsky anyone? « Jim Blazsik
- The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Remember Estrada
- 2006 Video: Obama On Supreme Court Nominees « Nice Deb
- Souter will scooter…(round-up) | The Anchoress
- Justice Souter to Retire - Sportbikes.net
- Suitably Flip
- Souter’s Gone. Let the Democratic Carnage Begin! : The Sundries Shack
- Obama’s Front Runner for SCOTUS; And Two Other Possibilities : Stop The Liberals Now
- It’s All Obama All The Time « Peace and Freedom Promises
- Ask Dr. Davermann - Volume 6 - 05/01/09
- PoliGazette » No ‘Whities’ Please
- Blogtalk: Supreme Selection and Obama’s Surprise - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com
- Justice Souter to Retire - Page 2 - Sportbikes.net
- Elena Kagan to replace David Souter? | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Nightly Ramble: The Old Deli Edition | BitsBlog
- Bye Bye, Justice Souter | OpenMarket.org
- My Thoughts on Justice Souter Retiring | All American Blogger
- CitzCom
- Outing Obama - Nominating a Liberal « The Lioness
- $100 on Sonia Sotomayor? « Around The Sphere
- Outing Obama - Courting a Liberal « The Lioness
- Obama’s Justice Isn’t Blind: She’s “Empathetic” « Peace and Freedom Promises
- 2006 Audio of Obama on Appointing Supreme Court Justices : Stop The ACLU
- Obama & the SCOTUS « A Political Dookie
- Just Another Week in Utopia | The Lonely Conservative
- Justice David Souter to resign from Supreme Court « Wellsy’s World
- Ugly…the new beautiful in the Age of Obama « AMERICA TIMES
- CBS News Schieffer: Zeleny Softball Question was GREAT, “Obama hit it out of the park!” | The Great Illuminator
- The One Winged Eagle Named Barry | The Admonition
- Gird Your Loins « The Lioness
- Today’s Tidbits
- Saturday Afternoon - Watching The Mud Flow - Laundry Time , An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
- Obama’s Approval Ratings Still Falling! « Goodtimepolitics
- What’s Important? An Invitation « Mark Epstein
- Day 2 - Reactions to the Souter Announcement « Justice Chatter
- Souter Speculation Link Round-Up « Justice Chatter
- Racism in the US Supreme Court: White Males Need Not Apply! — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami
- ginandtacos.com » Blog Archive » THIS IS JUST A TEST
- Best of the Blogs - Weekend of May 3 on The Patriot Room
- What to Expect From Obama’s Supreme Court Pick « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
- SCOTUS: Summer’s upon us but a cold chill is in the air « Seeing Red AZ
- Weekend Opinionator: The Early Line on the High Court - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com
- AP: Six Names on Obama’s SCOTUS Short-List : The American Pundit
- Breaking: Sotomayor Picked for SCOTUS : The American Pundit
- The Case Against Sotomayor « Patriot Burr
- Michelle Malkin » SCOTUS pick: Sonia Sotomayor
- Sotomayor: I Would Think Latinas Reach Better Conclusions Than White Males : The American Pundit
- Sotomayor, een ervaren latina | Canards
- Rule of Law or Rule of Judges–Yakkety Yak–You Know–Takes A Racist To Appoint A Racist! « Pronk Palisades
- FACTS: WHY VOTE AGAINST SOTOMAYOR « FactReal
- Justice Ginsburg Hospitalized, Raising Questions about the Future of the Supreme Court | haha thats so funny lol xD
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Supreme Court
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats libel 'Kill the Bill' crowd as racist, violent crackpots when 99.99% are patriots concerned with the evisceration of the Constitution
Legal Insurrection
» Look Who Really Is Killing American Soldiers (Hint, Not Israel)Mudville Gazette
» Protests in DCDoug Ross @ Journal
» Best Photos from the 'Kill the Bill' Tea Party Rally in DCMudville Gazette
» Smell the excitement, feel the heatStop The ACLU
» Do the Dems Have the Votes for Obamacare?Pundit & Pundette
» "Pro-lifers" cave, Obama the Unbearable orates
Not that I am familiar with any of her rulings, but one choice is Justice Helen Hoens from the NJ Supreme Court. She’s been appointed by Whitman, Codey and Corzine so she must do something right for the left. She has an autistic son, so she has that relatability that Obama is looking for.
Here are some traits THE ONE will consider mandatory criteria in any condidate…
1) the Constitution, as written, is a document of “negative” rights
2) the jurisprudence of the US has to be infused with fundamental “positive” rights
3) there is, and can be, no reason to be limited by the Constitution as written, tho it can be used any time it is convenient
4) only doctrinaire, knee-jerk leftists need apply, tho the ability to have the MSM depict them as “moderates” will be a plus
Ragspierre said:
Don’t forget, they must sign an affadavit that they or anyone in their household does not or ever has owned a firearm.
Yeah, that’s in the Consitution…
Earth to lgm, what is there about these three that Specter wouldn’t love?
Picking Hillary would get her out of Obama’s hair for life. Strong motive, and no Dem would vote against her. Besides, she has the necessary lack of scruples…but Diane Wood seems to meet the GD America litmus test.
Actually, I’ve known many, many Leftists who advocated strongly for gun control laws who owned guns.
They are ELITISTS…
THEY are not subject to the law…!!!
Here’s FOXNews’ list:
Lucky for us the two BOLDED folks can’t be replaced.
Or can they?!?!?
Question. Isn’t the whole “abusing lawyers” thing a net plus for her for most of you?
Yes
No.
Bad manners/conduct…especially from those in a seat of power…
is pretty much universally deplored here.
It’s called breeding…or class.
It just amazes me that the liberal appointees see their purpose as creating law based on their cultural worldview rather than interpreting the law as written in the Constitution.
It is called progressive.
You answered your own question, LOL!
Why wouldn’t we expect affirmative action appointees from the affirmative action president?
KAGAN:
Not difficult at all. That would come from the same school of logic that Timmy cheating on his taxes qualified him to be SecTreas / Head of the IRS.
SOTOMAYOR:
Wasn’t that Rahmbo’s chief qualification in being appointed Chief of Staff? If Sotomayor gets the nod, she can be the temporary CofS when Rahm takes a vacation and keep the b!tch kitty factor intact.
WOOD:
Someone to the left of Ginsburg and Breyer? If only she were a minority, she’d be a shoo-in. Wait, maybe she could change her name to Madera.
That’s our job. Just like Obama to want to have a Federal empoyee taking our jobs…
As usual the village idiot has it wrong.
In order for a nominee to even get out of the judiciary committee for a floor vote, at least one member of the minority party has to vote for the nominee. As a Democrat now, Specter, the most likely (former) Republican to vote for an Obama nominee won’t count. If the other Republicans can hold fast, these nominees wouldn’t even come up for a vote.
Unfortunately, that’s a big if because Gramnesty is also a member of the Judiciary committee. I wouldn’t bet that he can’t be bought and sell the country out … again.
That’s why the GOP should BROOM the membership of Judiciary, and put in CONSTITUTIONISTS.
If there was a gonad-equipped GOP…
The vetting process should determine if any of these potential nominees have;
1) Paid all their taxes…before now!
2) Hired illegal immigrant workers.
3) Contributed to the Obama campaigns.
Their stands on abortion, torture, and illegal immigration will not matter, since the country has already accepted the president’s position on these matters…or should I say some of the more ill informed in the country.
Careful scrutiny should determine whether or not these people have violated the oath of their positions…have they “protected and defended” the Constitution, or have they skewed, manipulated, misinterpreted, or liberalized it’s meanings?
Let’s just pray that the conservatives (if there are any remaining) in congress don’t negotiate, or be bi-partisan in the selection process.
Do you have a cite for that? because it seems to contradict this:
Depends on the attorney. For Eric Holder, um, yeah, good choice.
For you, not so much. We need to keep you around for the “humor” factor of law.
I’m sure there is some overlap between the list of lawyers that Sotomayor believes should be abused and my list. But, while my list of lawyers that should be abused is much longer than hers, I’m sure she’d be much more abusive to the few lawyers that I believe shouldn’t be abused.
every one of these scholars has been reversed on their “let’s make the laws fair” judicial approach. since judges are now the law makers, can’t we just get rid of those 535 morons in congress? we’re becoming more and more like a banana republic, where el presidente for life gets his wishes codified by his hand picked judiciary, and enforced by his republican guard. first you have elections stolen, then rigged to keep them a one party rule, which leads inevitably to coups. 230 years of constitutional republic rule, with 1 civil war, shot to hell.
I know a lot of these comments are tongue-in-cheek.
But…and I think Chaps would agree…I don’t find a tyrant in black robes anything but a tyrant, regardless of their politics.
In my area, a lot of Rs that had had their butts on the bench for a LONNNNGGGG time were swept away in the last election cycle.
Some of them will be missed.
I celebrated the “retirement” of several others.
I find the smaller their fiefdom, the more inflated their sense of power.
It was difficult to see how being a community organizer makes a person qualified to be president of the United States too. How’d that turn out?
I might agree, had I never practiced before Federal District or state appellate courts. Experience teaches me otherwise.
I wish it were otherwise…
Good thing the Obama Appointees have yet to learn from their master. All they would have to do to get through the vetting process is make secret trips to places they have lived, seal all their information such as college transcripts and birth certificates and such, then spend over $800,000 dollars on lawyers and payoffs to make sure any attempt to have them unsealed and provided for the public to read and see that they are who they claim to be, they would have no problem what-so-ever.
I guess he is saving all that information for himself.
You forgot mobilizing rent-a-mobs to demonize and personally destroy respected scholars who were trying to obtain public information regarding his conduct in doling out huge amounts of money, and the results of that spending in the lives of the poor students about whom he pretends to care.
That was one of my personal favorites…
You can be sure that whoever Obama picks, they will be way left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and OBama himself. The disaster of Obama’s election continues.
I expect a nominee to look perplexed when you mention the Constitution and then beam broadly when you mention Karl Marx. Anyone else just wouldn’t fit in the “new world” that congress and the president envision.
I just listened to THE ONE outline his criteria for selecting his SCOTUS nominee…
He said lots of stuff that was simply unbelievable if you have read or heard his true views.
He also said he was looking for “…someone who shares my respect for Constitutional values…”. An inadvertent truth, which means…
We are ski–rood.
I’m getting a wiff of some emanations of penumbra.
Must have stepped in something.
Wow…he is looking for someone who is THAT bad? Considering the way he is shredding, mulching, defecating on, throwing out and generally making it as if it never existed, I would say anyone short of a died-in-the-wool Stalinist won’t do.
Yeah, he respects the Constitution, he’s not eligible and he knows it.
He means it when he says he’s going to remake America.
The GOP is helping him.
In any event, we’ve got a fight on our hands.
Not surprising that there are a couple on that list from the Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit…the most liberal and the most often reversed circuit court in the country. This is a list of morons, not U.S. Supereme Court material! Odumbo has to be completely insane to think these people would do what is right for the Country. He has no idea what he is doing and the damage will be irreversable.
From whom? I mean, who in the Republican party has the yarbles to oppose “this historic presidency?”
Well they certainly are an un-attractive lot—ideologically and physically.
MM: “Gird you loins.”
You forgot to say, “Think of England!”
(Personally, I don’t think of England, and I have no need to gird my loins. I think of America and of Western Civilization and I weep.)
…and another thing, this so-called “Perez Hilton”: It is difficult not to fantasize an action against this obnoxious little queer that would be the most profound violation of his civil rights. THAT is where I need to “think of England” and still my hand against this deviant worm who cries out for “a little correction.”
Thank you, MichelleMalkin.com commenters, for so consistently proving beyond a doubt what everyone else already suspected.
Look, you little jerk. We are as tolerant of gays as this obnoxious little queer is of those of us who have religious beliefs that don’t think marriage should be between two people of the same sex. Apparently, you think tolerance only goes one way…yours. Is it too much to ask that the gays leave the details of their sex lives in the bedroom where they belong? They flaunt their lifestyle as if everyone should just love it and embrace it. I’m sorry, but the MAJORITY in this country are not in favor of gay marriage. Get over it!! And calling this Perez Hilton creature what he/she is…isn’t bigotry. This little queer brought it on himself with his outragious, slanderous behaviour. Don’t criticize us for finding him an abomination. He is.
I will no longer bow down to the god of political correctness when it is so ridiculous and one-sided. That boat has sailed!! The likes of Perez Hilton do not deserve any kind of tolerance or respect on my part. He is a caricature. And he disgusts me, not because he is gay, but because he flaunts it and displays complete intolerance to anyone who disagrees with him. And where is the political correctness that says you should not be a bigot against people who have religious convictions? It is perfectly acceptable to slander and demean a Christian? But not a flaming queer? I don’t call my nephew who is gay…those names…because he doesn’t earn my scorn. But Perez Hilton does. Respect must be earned. There is the difference. So sue me.
What you said, happyscrapper!
There is just no need to hang our heads low while been called bigots by scum like “Perez Hilton.”
I missed the YouTube video where Perez described “the details” of his sex life. I’m guessing you pay to be a member of that online club. Enjoy.
And that fact that you spend so much time talking about Perez Hilton — a sad man who should focus on Jenny Craig above all — is just…pathetic.
How did the subject of queers make it into this thread? Obama nominating a queer for SCROTUS? Sorry, I’ve been at work all day, and it seems I’ve missed something…
Girding our loins. Hmmm… Is that like trussing our chickens?
That SCROTUS bit made me lol. Nicely played, sir.
If Sotomayor is appointed, that would put six Catholics on the Court. While I personally reject religious tests for such appointments (they are unconstitutional anyway), whatever happened to diversity, or the Court “looking like America?”
I think Granholm is a shoe-in. Michigan would be happy to be rid of her.
For far to long now we have picked Supreme Court Judges from lawyers and other judges….It is high time we look to the field of Community Activist for highly qualified candidates . It is a new day and a new America…no longer will highly qualified candidates be held back simply by a lack of knowledge and experience.….Stand by to watch the Republicans, artfully, stand by helplessly……
It’s about time we appoint someone whose adherents show up at protests wearing hoods (ACORN, LaRaza, ANSWER, etc..) and tossing bottles of frozen urine at police and anyone who opposes them.
We just had a May Day rally that was so packed with Communist flags and Che Guevara banners that the media couldn’t help but show them even as they misreported on the event.
Meanwhile, the GOP is staging a “listening” tour. I have a suggestion, anwer you phones, faxes and e-mails.
do liberals have any judges that are worth the time of day. everyone of these court jesters is unqualified. idiot judges making decisions that are based on the drama in their pitiful lives. more emotional wrecks, yeah that’s what this country needs.
no2pcbs1 said (#144):
Arrogant. The candidates may be wrong, but they’re not idiots. They’ve done something nobody on this thread (chappy possibly excepted) could have done, been accepted to a top law school and excelled in the hyper competitive legal profession at the highest level.
PP: This listening tour is DOA; Calling themselves the National Council for a New America does not bode well; What is wrong with the original America?; What is wrong with a Constitutional Republic in the 21st century?; Nothing!; They need to offer new ideas within the constitutional limits; People out in the real world can offer them untold amounts of advice in that regard; Will they listen?; I doubt it.
*And McCain is involved; How insane.
*My first bit of advice is still, “if you voted for the bailout, then it’s time to get the hell out”.
bjc: Why is McCain still speaking for Republicans anyway? Was Gore speaking for Democrats after 2000? Kerry after 2004? If there is one thing the Dems do right, it is they bury their dead. The GOP needs to bury its dead.
PP: Yeah, I don’t like to pile on, but they should have learned from 2008 election results; Romney on tour I can see, but the others simply muddy the waters.
*Cantor is an excellent example; He voted for the bailout, which is unconstitutional, then he voted to tax bonuses at 90%, also unconstitutional; They will be viewed as fragmented as ever with groups like these out on the stump.
*They need someone from outside of D.C. to step forward as the de facto voice/listener, such as Romney, Jindal, Sanford, Palin, Perry; And they should start with the Fair Tax, possibly the only antidote to P-BO’s socialist agenda.
*Out for now; Gonna hit the town.
bjc: Romney called for amnesty a few weeks ago so he is OUT on my list. His opinion and principles are depend on who is paying him. That is particularly offensive to me because he is independently wealthy and doesn’t have to pander to the money.
I want to like Jindal but his performance since hitting the national stage has been very lame. Perry is just Bush ‘43 all over again. I’m still open to Palin and Sanford but they need to step up.
I am looking for House Republicans to start the ball rolling by calling for new leadership while bypassing Boehner to caucus with the Blue Dogs. Successful candidates usually impose themselves on the party and this would lay the groundwork for the GOP to reconnect to its base while putting the RNC and McCain/Kennedy liberal wing out to pasture where they belong. Reagan and Clinton both imposed themselves on their parties who fought them hammer and tong. That is what we need to do now. Otherwise, third party.
Umm…no.
You can volunteer to be an idiot, no matter your native intelligence.
And, ummm…
affirmative action products just don’t meet the other descriptions…
I think that was demonstrated to be a lie a while back.
If you keep posting it, guess what that makes you…?
these judges are idiots. that they were accepted to “a top law school” means nothing. ivy league schools are no longer what they used to be, check out some of the products of those schools currently in this administration. intellectually challenged and emotional disasters is the best way to describe them. being “given” an ivy league diploma because you fit certain criteria doesn’t make you smart.
Big effing deal. Fill a broken waterpot with good water and it still leaks.
Is the assumption that judges are appointed on their legal acumen? I thought they were appointed (in many states anyway) by politicians, much as we are seeing here.
If legal acumen were the deciding factor, I believe that Miguel Estrada would be on the court.
*See Obama
Rags…where exactly does Romney stand on immigration? I have always liked him, but I hear conflicting things about him and I don’t know what to believe any more. Has he been “Palined”? I know one thing, if he was President right now, we would not be in the financial mess we are in…guaranteed. He is a financial genius.
Scrappy;
I haven’t followed the Mittster for some time.
I just know that I followed up on PP’s story, and traced it back through Think Progress (!!!), The Hill, and to a Boston Glob columnist. I don’t consider those credible, especially after I also found and posted a quote from Romney saying the Boston Glob lady was lying.
IFFFFF PP has good info, I’ll be happy to apologize.
I agree as to Mitt’s financial sense. I think he has some integrity.
But my Golden could do a better job with the economy than THE ONE. He would do NOTHING, and that would be fine.
You are right. There is someone that blights this thread and Michelle’s blog that most certainly could not be trusted with any position of importance. Can you guess who that might be???
Rags: since you are going to call me a liar and lie about having exposed my claim on Romney’s recent call for getting amnesty out of the way before the 2010 elections begin, I will post the link again.
His position on immigration reform includes a “pathway to citizenship”. If you want more details, look up the various Townhall posts Hugh Hewitt, a key Romney operator, has dedicated to this subject calling for amnesty in the past few weeks.
It’s amazing how you and I can agree on almost everything yet your road always leads you to impractical options or in this case, lying in support of a RINO.
That’s it? My proof is not acceptable because YOU don’t consider the sources credible? What a larf! What kind of logic is that? Why even bother arguing with you? You are the all-knowing God!
Happyscrapper: it would not have mattered who was elected president last year, our economy would be in the same sorry shape. The past eight years under Bush were a catastrophe. That is why the Republicans were voted out of power. Where was the fiscal restraint? When Bush took office in 2001, the main economic question was whether the enormous budget surplus should be used to pay off the national debt. Although the Republican in Congress larded the budget with another $trillion of spending, it was still projected that the debt would be paid off by 2006-7.
Despite the frequent claims to the contrary here, Clinton was the most pro-business president in our lifetime. He was also a fiscal moderate and his first budget in 1993 (rejected by Congress on arrival) was the model for Gingrich’s Contract with America.
It is certain that Romney would have done the same thing as Obama which is to continue the bank bailouts that Bush started. There is nothing that Obama has done, other than the Chrysler negotiations, that is different.
In fairness, here is Romney’s response to Joan Venochi’s article. Not much of a rebuttal. Not only does it amount to little more than boiler plate campaign rhetoric, it is inconsistent to the other statements he has been making and hardly puts him in good stead with La Raza and MeCha who will never accept anything less than unconditional blanket amnesty.
He is again advocating COMPREHENSIVE immigration reform. We all know what comprehensive means. Sorry but we already bought that Trojan Horse twice. Never again. He should know better. Secure the border FIRST, then we can talk about immigration reform and what to do with the illegals already here.
I was a strong supporter of his at one time but I have come to see him as the slick flip-flopper he is often criticized of being.
Romney believes that one way to attract more minorities to the GOP is to pass immigration reform before the next election, saying the issue becomes demagogued by both parties on the campaign trail.
“We have a natural affinity with Hispanic-American voters, Asian-American voters,” he said.
Speaking in his Ritz-Carlton room with a pair of blue jeans on the dresser, Romney declined to criticize immigration hard-liners like former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who backed Romney after he dropped his own presidential bid. Romney argued that all 2008 GOP candidates — including Tancredo — strongly favor legal immigration.
There’s a slightly less selective quote, PP.
Be VERY careful before you start calling me a liar, son.
I don’t know the particulars of what Romney proposes, and I think it clear you don’t, either.
I don’t consider Think Progress a reliable source, and I find it very curious that you do.
How about letting Romney speak for himself. I will join in condemning him if he’s wrong.
You have my word.