Back when Mitt Romney was running for president, I thought that questions about his personal views on abortion were not really relevant because the president cannot directly change the laws of the country; he would be required to enforce the established laws.
How wrong I was. We see today that the president gets to pick and choose which laws get enforced. We see that even attorneys general get to pick and choose what laws they will defend. Although the most heinous criminal must be offered competent legal counsel to defend them in a court room, the people of any state are not afforded such unless their attorney general chooses to defend their constitutional amendments or laws against attacks from minority groups.
How well are societies served by individuals who pick and choose which laws really should count and which ones should not count? Long live the law — except that one, that one, and maybe not that one .
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run for...
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage hurts...
- Catherine Rampell: Reasons behind the bad...
- In our opinion: Let FAA, not Utah...
- Letter: Enforcing the dress code
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by focusing on...
- My view: Don't make women optional in marriage
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama...
- My view: Don't make women optional in... 104
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage... 95
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run... 66
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by... 45
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama... 41
- Letter: Lateralist logic 40
- Drew Clark: Either view of marriage... 39
- In our opinion: On Holder's heels... 34