Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Mitt Romney's Justice Advisory Committee: Good News For All Conservatives

Mitt Romney made headlines yesterday when he announced an advisory team of 63 lawyers to give him legal counsel on a wide variety of matters. These lawyers collectively released a statement on Mitt Romney's blog explaining why they are willing to participate on this advisory team. Its worth reading.
Mitt's legal dream team, will be co-chaired by the famous and sharp conservative legal scholar Robert Bork, Harvard Law School professor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican during George W. Bush's presidency and Richard Wiley, a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. There is also other outstanding lawyers on Mitt Romney's Justice Advisory Committee. Many of them have served in George W. Bush's administration.
One of the most common criticism of Mitt Romney is that out of the 36 judicial appointments he made while Governor of Massachusetts, only 9 of them were Republican. However, a closer inspection reveals that statistic doesn't reveal the whole story because Mitt Romney appointed those 9 conservative judges in positions that really mattered. Here's Mitt Romney's explanation:
The governor said that, so far, he has had few chances to appoint judges to the highest state courts, where his criteria would change to include ''strict construction, judicial philosophy."
''With regards to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren't really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime, because in that case, apply elsewhere," Romney said.
In other words, the appointment of liberal judges who had a solid record of being tough on crime had no influence or impact on state policy or laws. At the district level, the only thing that is relevant is their approach on crime. However, in judicial positions where a judge could have an impact on state law, policy or program, Mitt Romney picked conservative judges. Thus, Mitt Romney played his cards right by focusing his energy on getting key positions filled with conservative judges and was successful at it.
In fact, if you take a good look at Mitt Romney's record, it reveals that conservatives can have confidence in Mitt Romney as President when it comes to legal issues and judicial appointments:
If given a fair look, Romney’s record shows a leader who was determined to move the courts in Massachusetts as far to the right as he could.  Romney’s focus on appointing justices who were tough on crime should be applauded.  His efforts in creating a judicial nominating commission that would give conservatives a fair chance in a state dominated by liberals was a creative way of achieving the best possible results in difficult circumstances.  His appointment of conservative Christopher Moore to chair the Judicial Nominating Commission showed that Romney played his biggest cards where they mattered most.  Due to his constant criticism of judicial activism, his statements of support for judges such as Samuel Alito and John Roberts should be taken at face value, as his record gives us very little that would counter those claims.  If Romney is elected President, conservatives can count on him to appoint Supreme Court justices which will respect the constitution, rather than legislate from the bench.
This collection of top notch conservative lawyers and legal minds demonstrates Mitt Romney is no RINO when it comes to legal issues. Furthermore, it reaffirms his commitment to appoint judges who are faithful to the Constitution and will not legislate from the bench. Mitt Romney will seek to appoint pro-life judges and to uphold traditional marriage. Finally, given that Mitt Romney has a law degree, this panel reflects his own conservative legal views and what kind of lawyers he appreciates.

This is great news for conservative lawyers such as myself. However, regardless if you're involved in the legal profession or not, Mitt Romney's legal team is awesome news for all conservatives.


  1. Hi, it's me indy voter again. I also thought this was good news. It's very likely I'm not as conservative as you are, so what it said to me is that Romney gets that Eric Holder's approach to running the Justice Department should be a big general election issue (and I agree with that BIGTIME. Holder has been Obama's worst appointment by far).

    I was posting on another site this morning that the beauty of how this campaign is being mapped out is how big-picture, long-game SMART it is.

    As an indy I still wait until the field is complete and give everyone a full and fair listen, but Romney's early efforts have been impressive.

    About the only thing I find objectionable (and with indys there's always something--there's no perfect candidate) is that I wish he hadn't signed the Defense of Marriage pledge. I can respect the view that the actual word "marriage" should remain defined as a man-woman relationship. What bothers me is that seeking an amendment to the constitution and calling it a "defense" of marriage begs the question of what marriage needs to be defended from, and appears to be motivated by a pro-active attempt to block gays from seeking rights.

    Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I always thought the Constitution granted rights rather than denied them, and that the only amendment that ever specifically denied rights (Prohibition) ended up being repealed.

  2. I always like your blog post because you always comes with different ideas and information. I always shared your site post with my friends. Keep posting and i will follow you. best advisory company