Mitt Romney

  • December 19, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Newt Gingrich’s outlandish commentary on so-called radical judges is garnering, rightfully so, plenty of attention, but as American University Law Professor Jamie Raskin writes in this piece for The Huffington Post, there are other Republican presidential candidates, whose positions on the judiciary are just as worrisome.

    Raskin, also a Maryland State senator, noted that Gingrich’s “outbursts against judicial independence” have raised the hackles of a number of prominent conservatives. And one can see why he says. During the last GOP debate, Gingrich’s comments about the judicial branch, Raskin says, “were divorced from reality and indeed comical for a self-proclaimed ‘historian.’ He called the courts ‘grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful, and … arrogant in their misreading of the American people.’”

    In particular Gingrich claimed he was seriously peeved over the federal appeals court opinion that found constitutionally suspect the practice of reciting in public schools the Pledge of Allegiance, which was made religious during the Eisenhower administration with the assertion of the words “under God.” That decision, as Raskin notes, was later reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Nonetheless, Gingrich bandied about that federal appeals court opinion, along with a few others, to blast the federal courts and claim that if he were president he’d take action to reign judges in. (On a CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gingrich said there is “no reason the American people need to tolerate a judge that is out of touch with American culture,” and that if he were president he’d order federal Marshalls to arrest such judges.)

    But Raskin warns that voters who care about an independent judiciary should not be lulled into believing that Mitt Romney is any better on the matter.  

    Raskin points out that “Romney’s new constitutional advisor is none other than former Judge Robert Bork, an astounding selection to head up the Governor’s legal and constitutional affairs advisory team. Bork is a fiercely pro-corporate, anti-voting rights, anti-choice, anti-feminist, pro-censorship, anti-gay, anti-free speech, anti-separation of church and state, and evolution-denying ideologue who has described the 9th Amendment to the Constitution defending the rights of the people as ‘an inkblot’ and called for allowing Supreme Court constitutional decisions to be overturned by majority vote in Congress as well as a constitutional amendment to deny gay people the right to marry.”

  • July 13, 2011

    Politicians seeking the Republican presidential nomination are splitting over how closely they want to associate with a Religious Right Iowa group dubbed FAMiLY LEADER, and comedians are having a field day with the organization’s blatantly bigoted “marriage vow” pledge, but in a column for the Des Moines Register Graham Gillette says the group’s “nonsense” is not that funny. (Republican presidential candidates Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, a longtime darling of the Religious Right, have both signed the pledge. Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney has distanced himself from the so-called “Marriage Vow” pledge, TPMDC reports.)

    The group, led by Bob Vander Plaats, who helped lead the efforts to oust the Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled that the state’s anti-gay marriage law is unconstitutional, has a long and tawdry record of using his Christian Right platform to trash the LGBT community. RightWingWatch notes that Plaats “is also tied to an effort that likened being gay to being a cigarette smoker and once said that allowing equal marriage rights for gay couples threatened the system of private property and gun-ownership rights. One former adviser said that Vander Plaats is ‘obsessed with the gay marriage issue.’”  

    The group’s website describes itself as a “consistent, courageous voice in the churches, in the legislature, in the media, in the courtroom, in the public square … always standing for God’s truth.”

    The group’s marriage vow pledge, which it asked the Republican candidates to sign, included in its original preamble the wildly bigoted claim that “African-American families were more secure under slavery than they are today, under an African-American president,” TPMDC reports. That language, TPMDC notes, has since been removed from the pledge.

    The marriage vow, however, still includes some laughably outlandish language.

    For example its preamble states, “Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture, by Classical Philosophers, by Natural Law, and by the American Founders – upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.”

    Moreover “marriage fidelity,” only between men and women “protects innocent children, vulnerable women, the rights of fathers, the stability of families, and the liberties of all American citizens under our republican form of government.”

    The historical inaccuracy and general idiocy of the marriage pledge obviously doesn’t matter to Plaats, and apparently neither to the politicos who have agreed to peddle his far-right “nonsense.”