This story is disturbing on a number of levels.
On his campaign website, Romney states that as president he “will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” But apparently Roberts no longer makes the cut.
CBS reporter Jan Crawford asked the Republican nominee if he’d still nominate a justice like the Bush-appointed Roberts, knowing what he knows now.
“Well, I certainly wouldn’t nominate someone who I knew was gonna come out with a decision I violently disagreed with – or vehemently, rather, disagreed with,” Romney said. “And he reached a conclusion I think that was not accurate and not an appropriate conclusion. But that being said, he’s a very bright person and I’d look for individuals that have intelligence and believe in following the Constitution.”
As I said, this is disturbing on a number of levels. First, as these charts clearly show (also see the one I’ve embedded above), the Roberts Supreme Court is already “severely conservative” (to use Willard’s bizarre phrase). As Nate Silver explains, “the current court is the most conservative since at least the 1930s.” And Roberts himself is no exception; he’s been a solid “conservative,” although a wee bit more in the traditional sense than in the radical sense of the Tea Party, Clarence Thomas, etc. But still, bottom line, Justice Roberts is very conservative, which makes Willard’s promise not to appoint people like him to the Court disturbing, as it means he’d only consider radical right wingnuts like Thomas and Scalia. Frightening.
Second, this whole “follow the Constitution” line is ridiculous and downright idiotic. What on earth is Romney saying here? That somehow Chief Justice Roberts did not “follow the Constitution” in ruling that Congress has the power to impose a “tax,” but somehow he did follow the Constitution in his incorrect finding that Congress doesn’t have the power to impose a “mandate” under the Commerce clause. Remember that no less a right wingnut than Ken Cuccinelli has stated that this ruling was a big win for “freedom” (whatever that means, exactly). So…what on earth is Romney talking about? Would he only appoint people to the Supreme Court who have an even more stunted, warped view of the Constitution than Justice Roberts and the other “conservatives” on the Court already hold? How much more “severely conservative” can we possibly get in this country? Of course, Romney IS the one who strongly believes that “corporations are people, my friend,” so basically look for the “ExxonMobil/Koch Brothers United States,” formerly known as “The United States of America,” if Romney gets to appoint another Supreme Court Justice or two. Shudder.
Third, what’s with Willard’s use of the word “violently?” My ears wouldn’t normally perk up so much at that, but this is a guy with a history of bullying, including physical violence and animal abuse, so when words like that slip out – and note how he quickly caught himself, realizing that he had f***ed up – it opens a window onto the man’s “soul.” Also keep in mind that Willard’s running for a position in which the use of military force, aka “violence,” is always a possibility. Again, I’d argue that Willard’s life history provides evidence that he should never be trusted with instruments of destruction and violence. Further evidence is that he’s surrounded himself with a bunch of warmongering, bellicose, chickenhawk advisers who would be more than happy to pull the trigger at the slightest provocation. Didn’t we already suffer with that during Bush and Cheney’s 8-year reign of error? Enough already!
Finally, of course, this is yet another in the line of interminable flip flops by Willard “Mitt” Romney (including on his real first name, which is NOT “Mitt”). For instance, just in the past day, Willard completely contradicted himself on whether the “individual mandate” – which of course was a key component of “Romneycare” – is a “tax” or a “penalty” (note: the Wall Street Journal rips him for that – hahaha). In typical Willard fashion, somehow it’s only a “tax” when he wants to attack President Obama, but of course it is NOT a tax when he’s trying to avoid the charge that he raised taxes as governor of Massachusetts. It’s slippery, slimy, slick, and whatever other adjective you can come up with to describe the type of politician most Americans hate, or at least CLAIM to hate. Yet this is the Republican nominee for President in 2012, and this is the guy we all have to focus our efforts on defeating. If you need motivation, just picture a Supreme Court of 9 Clarence Thomases and Antonin Scalias. As I said — disturbing!