I came across this piece by Alexham today over at Confirm Them
regarding Mitt Romney’s record on judicial appointments as Governor of
Massachusetts. In this piece he referred to an article by Deal W. Hudson for the Morley Institute for Church and Culture which is highly critical of Gov. Romney’s record in this area:
For all of Romney’s rhetoric about activist judges, his
own judicial appointments also leave much to be desired. The Boston
Globe reported in July of 2005 that, Romney has “passed over GOP
lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced,
instead tapping registered Democrats or independents — including two
gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.”
In May of 2005, Romney selected for a district court judgeship
Stephen Abany, a former board member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and
Gay Bar Association who organized the group’s opposition to a 1999 bill
to outlaw same-sex marriage. The MLGBA is “dedicated to ensuring that
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality
is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated.”
Ironically, the Globe reports that two days before Abany’s
nomination, Romney was lamenting the liberal tilt of the state’s bench,
telling Fox News that ‘’our courts have a record here in
Massachusetts…of being a little blue and being Kerry-like.”
Catholics would no doubt also be surprised to hear another Romney
choice for the bench is Marianne C. Hinkle, who described herself in
her application for the bench as a longtime active member of
Dignity/USA, a group which wants to reform the Catholic Church’s views
and teachings on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender activity.
What exactly explains the contradiction between Romney’s
staff/judicial choices and his conservative rhetoric? Since lower-court
appointments are often stepping-stones to higher-court judicial
appointments, should Catholics conclude that these choices are
indicative of the sort of judges Romney would appoint as President?
They sure should. Especially with the Democrats on Capitol Hill in control of who makes it past confirmation.There are plenty of candidates on our side in Massachusetts who do not have a paper trail on the hotbutton issues that can spin it to get past the Democrats.
Alexhem's post is here.Deal Hudson gives us some insight into what kind of folks "President" Mitt Romney might appoint to the federal bench:
For all of Romney's rhetoric about activist judges, his
own judicial appointments also leave much to be desired. The Boston
Globe reported in July of 2005 that, Romney has "passed over GOP
lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced,
instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two
gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights."
I realize, of course, that we are still in the midst of seeking to
confirm President Bush's appointments, but I think it is important for
those who closely follow judicial nominations to know exactly where the
leading GOP presidential cotenders stand in this respect.
Would our imaginations ever entertain that prochoice Democrats would nominate a prolifer because the Republicans in a majority have to confirm them? Of course not.
There are ways to select a candidate on our side without a paper trail who knows how to sling the presentation just as well as the proaborts do.
Recent Comments