Mitt Romney forms iconic judicial panel

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 6, 2011 8:01 a.m.

    Is this the same originalism as espoused by Mike Lee, who then on the Senate floor this past week said that the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution should be limited by our current day society? The problem with these people is that it is not about so-called original intent, which is pretty much impossible to divine for today's issues, it is that they are selective in how they want to apply it. I would bet that the Founding Fathers would be appalled by our current conservative Supreme Court giving individual rights that we have to corporations. The conservatives are not about the principles of the Founding Fathers, they are about amassing more political and economic power.

  • My2Cents Kearns, UT
    Aug. 6, 2011 5:20 a.m.

    The last thing we need is another Obama. Romney has just confirmed my dislike and lack of trust in his inabilities. Another man who doesn't know what he wants so he is setting up a panel of people just in case he needs guidance and give him deniabilty. We need a leader, not an idiot with no brain or spine.

    The constitution provides for all the panel of helpers and advisers he should ever need as a president without employing half the US as alternate advisers. If what the constitution provides is not enough then he is incompetent and unfit to lead this nation.

  • The Vanka Provo, UT
    Aug. 5, 2011 4:19 p.m.

    "Robert Bork, a martyr of conservative legal thought whose 1987 nomination to the Supreme Court was sunk by liberals."

    You can't be serious!

    Bork's nomination was sunk by himself.

    He was complicit with Nixon in the Watergate cover-up (search "Saturday Night Massacre").

    He supported a free-for-all among the States when it comes to polls, opposing standards of voting fairness - he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax!

    He repeatedly expressed legal opinions that favored an unrestrained Executive authority, verging on executive supremacy... about as close to a dictatorship as one can imagine outside of post-Weimar Germany.

    His "originalist" views and belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy", as well as his opposition to Roe v. Wade, are a direct threat to individual liberty.

    I will give Bork credit for his position on gun control. He has denounced the "NRA view" of the Second Amendment, instead arguing that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.

    Bork is an elitist whose understanding of the Constitution is so muddled that he likened the Ninth Amendment to an inkblot: uninterpretable.

    He sunk himself.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Aug. 5, 2011 3:31 p.m.

    More pandering to the extreme right.

    The Constitution doesn't need amending, we'd be just fine as a nation if we actually followed its guidelines.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2011 3:17 p.m.

    Our democracy depends on a government that respects the Constitution - Quote from Romney in article

    ...that's why, if elected president, I would appoint justices who will make AMENDMENTS or changes too...

    the constitution.