Mitt Romney couldn’t have been clearer reacting to last week’s Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision:
As you might imagine I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision and I agree with the dissent.”
Pretty unambiguous.
Hence, I wondered out-loud whether the Mittster would leave the Chief Justice on the “Courts & Constitution” page of his campaign website’s issues section. Does he still want to ”nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito” in light of last week’s events in reference to the Chief Justice?
I half-expected the name “John Roberts” to be stricken by this morning yet, sure enough, it remains.
Granted, Roberts is no flaming liberal, Save Jerseyans. This is the Heller Court! But there’s no denying that “judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling” even when it’s being done with the apparent intent to (1) avoid the “partisan” label” while admirably (2) refusing to enlarge the oft-abused Commerce Clause. Roberts rewrote the plain text of a law to convert what Congress passed – the health insurance mandate’s “penalty” – into a “tax.” That would appear to be Governor Romney’s conclusion, too, and such behavior on the part of a jurist runs counter to our conservative principles.
So why is Roberts still up there? Did the web staff interns talk a week off?
There’s two ways to look at this, folks. On the one hand, Romney risks creating a story by removing Roberts’ name. There’s also something to be said for avoiding overreactions and sending the wrong signals; after all, like I said before, Roberts isn’t exactly “the enemy” even though his latest decision fell far short of the expectations of those of us who support his nomination.
HOWEVER, if Roberts’s name remains, it’s almost certainly going to be an awkward debate question in October.
I’m honestly not trying to bust Romney’s chops, Save Jerseyans. I’ve been a supporter since 2008. That doesn’t mean he’s not going to have to deal with this issue at some point in the very, very near future! Better the bad news come from a “friend” like me, right?
I have to wonder sometimes where reporters are going when they start to bring in voting statistics like what percentage of voters in New Jersey have tatooes for example and how they relate to Obama/Romney votes. How does this even play a role in ethical voting? Who is going to take a magnifying glass and examine every inch of a voters body and put it into a statistic box and then publish it as useful voter facts? lol come on, seriously?