-31 votes

Biden Summed Up Why Obama Must Not Get Reelected.

The next president will most likely get to appoint TWO Supreme Court Justices.

Think about it. If Romney gets elected and puts two anti-Roe Justices on the Court, replacing two pro-Roe Justices, it will tip the balance, allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Even if one of the Justices replaces one of the current anti-Roe Justices, it it will put us only one Justice away from having an anti-Roe majority.

However, if Obama is reelected, he will put two Justices on the Supreme Court who SUPPORT Roe v. Wade, thereby increasing the pro-Roe Supreme Court majority to as much as 8-1.

Yes, Souter was appointed by a Republican. Yes, Roberts ruled Obamacare legal as a tax (He did not expand the Commerce clause like the liberal Justices wanted.). But, do you want the entire Supreme Court to be made up of Ginsburgs, Kagans, and Breyers?

Folks, if Obama is reelected, NOTHING is going to stop him from forever putting a permanent, Progressive lock on the Supreme Court. With all due respect to Dr. Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, and Dr. Woods, who sits on the Supreme Court for the next two to three decades is just TOO IMPORTANT to not care.

Please vote your conscience. But, please also keep in mind that when you vote, you're not just voting for a president, you're voting for two more Supreme Court Justices. Romney is naive and plain wrong on many issues, as were Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. But, I'll take Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito any day over Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg. Remember, Ginsburg doesn't even agree with our Constitution and recommended that a developing country not use our Constitution as a model.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Because Romney is such a solid conservative?

Have you lost your mind?? What part of "one big party" eludes you folks? Romney will appoint the same people Obama would or at least draw from the same prescribed list of candidates. Being ignorant and getting tricked is fun, but it gets old after a while.

I would imagine Ralph Nader made similar pitches in 2000.

Have you Progressives lost your mind?!? Gore will appoint the same kind of Justices that Bush will. It's just all one big party.

Al Gore would NOT have appointed Alito in a million years. Romney shares Obama's economic and foreign interventionist philosophy, although to a much lesser extent on the economic side. But, a President Romney would have NEVER appointed Elena Kagan or anyone as radical as she to the Supreme Court.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/24/the-case-aga...

This time

I haven't voted for a winning Presidential candidate since Reagan in '84, but once in a while there's a candidate that so bad and/or incompetent that they must be defeated. In my opinion Obama is such a candidate because of his handling of the economy, health care, religious liberty, foreign policy, etc..
I have no illusions about Romney being a great or even good President but I believe that he will be better than Obama. Yes, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils but in this case I believe not do so would be acquiescing to the victory of the greater evil.
BTW - Also, for me there is no acceptable protest candidate. I don't agree with Johnson on abortion, a national sales tax, war in Uganda etc.

Bob, could you please clarify for me?

What exactly makes you think Romney will be any better or less destructive on ANY of these fronts?

His proposed budget was the worst of the all the republican candidates when analyzed, if I recall correctly, he's openly stated his intent to be more militarily-aggressive than Obama (as well as INCREASING the size of our military in both troop counts and war machines - what exactly does that do for our economy?), he's merely promised to repeal and replace Obamacare (with what, exactly? And where does the president get authority to do such anyway?), and perhaps I missed it but I've seen him offering up nothing in the way of religious liberty that we don't already have with Obama - but I did see Romney essentially promise no challenges to abortion on the federal level.

I caught this same sort of diatribe from my mother a couple of weeks ago, and it still makes as little sense to me now as it did then. I have still not found anyone trying to convince me to vote for Romney who can give me just three significant and fundamental differences between his policy views and those of Obama - and if they DO exist, which I doubt, I would certainly hope they were on something that Romney hasn't already hedged on at least once.

There is just nothing Romney has offered up that I can trust based on his own history, and I can't find anything of significance in what he's currently offering from what we've already got: even BIGGER and more aggressive military, continued big government, continued war on drugs, no challenge to the FED, and on and on.

I will take part in none of it, sorry - you all can count me out as I will not lend my support to the atrocities that EITHER of them will commit.

I have also challenged LOADS of Romney supporters to give me

3 substantive reasons why Romney would be any better than Obama.

NOBODY has even managed to give me one yet.

Romney would spend more on the military.
About $2tn more in his first term, taking it to an average of about $1.7tn p.a. instead of Obama's circa $1.2tn.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Here you go.

1. He will grant a waiver to the states on Obamacare and sign a repeal of it if the Senate gives him one to sign. His replacement of Obamacare includes many of the same replacements Ron Paul was intending to implement including block granting Medicaid to the states, letting insurance companies sell across state lines and change the tax code so as not to distort the healthcare market by favoring employer-based health insurance over non-employer-based, personally-purchased health insurance, which would cause insurance costs to go down since people would then have the same advantage if they purchase insurance on their own, allowing the market to work.

2. He will not appoint Progressives to the Supreme Court like Obama. I think I've given more than enough reasons in my other comments as to why I'm positive Mitt Romney cannot politically do so.

3. He will roll back every job-killing regulation implemented under Obama. Yeah, yeah, it would be nice if he would also repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, but, who knows. If Republicans take back the Senate, maybe we can pressure him to do that too.

Just because Romney says something does not mean that

he will do it.

The only consistency about Romney is his track record of lying and shady deals going back more than 20 years.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

You are obviously an apologist for neocon Romney

1. Romney will NOT repeal Obamacare.
Multiple evidence for this, quite a lot from his own mouth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I6xXo...

http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mitt-romney-information.... (see section 2)

He would amend the act to introduce cross state insurance exchanges.

2. Romney has a history of appointing REGRESSIVES as justices - just like Obama.
(I HATE the term progressive - it sounds like it is somehow positive, when it is anything but.)

Romney is much more enthusiastic and honest sounding in his 2002 campaign speeches when he is talking about being pro Roe vs Wade, pro gay marriage etc. than he has ever been in any speech in 2012 when he tries to take the opposite view.

Romney is also anti gun rights.
A strong case can be made that Romney is actually more liberal than Obama on social issues.

3. NO HE WILL NOT

Romney has a history of increasing fees & regulations in Ma whilst Governor and not using his veto powers.
Romney raised fees by $780m p.a. in Ma, including introducing the death tax.
He became known as FeeFee Romney.
Romney was also known as the King of Pork - also with good reason.
(Urban dictionary FeeFee if you want a laugh - not for under 18's.)

Dixie Score
Zero out of 3 so far.

Have another go.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

You sure do what me to

You sure do what me to collect down votes. :-) Ok, here's my reasoning. The Governor is at least marginally pro-life. Given the GOP's historic opposition to abortion I'm sure House and Senate Republicans will do their best to keep Romney on the pro-life side. Governor Romney has spent most of his adult life in the private sector, he has a better understanding of what makes business work than the President. That increased knowledge of business with his position that business is over regulated will help the economy. As the economy improves more people will be working and paying more taxes. He has promised to cut the growth of the deficit. While its true that his cuts affect the growth of the budget more than they do the size of the budget as Bismarck said "Politics is the art of the possible" given the political climate and make up in Washington real cuts aren't possible yet, the best we can presently hope for is to cut the growth of government. Governor Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare and he has promised to do away with the anti-Catholic contraceptive mandate. (Under Obamacare Catholic employers are forced to buy insurance that includes contraceptives even though that violates their religious beliefs.)While it is true that the President can't repeal Obamacare without Congressional approval he can, under the law, issue waivers to everyone in the country from Obamacare. Meanwhile he can propose an alternate bill that would be an improvement. Since the Governor is a Mormon he should have a better understanding of the importance of religious liberty than President Obama. The Governor has also promised to help increase oil production. The Republican platform that the Governor is running on advocates auditing the Fed and exploring the possibility of returning to the gold standard, both of which are positive signs. The Governor's pick for Vice President is Congressman Paul Ryan. Congressman Ryan is strongly pro-life. He is also a fan of Ayn Rand and F.A. Hayek. Its got o be a positive step to get a fan of Rand and Hayek into the White House. Again, I'm not expecting great things from Romney but I believe Obama has been a disaster and must be replaced.

Go back and report to Priebus that your mission here

has totally failed.

(Or did Karl Rove send you?)

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

We hold elections with more

We hold elections with more than 1 name on the ballot because people don't agree on what's important and how to solve the problems facing our country. Its fine to disagree with me on who to vote for but you have no reason to believe that I have less than honest motives and/or that I'm being less than honest in my post.

Complete and utter garbage

Romney is TOTALLY ambivalent on abortion.

Romney is STRONGLY in favor of healthcare mandates - Bain makes a fortune out of them.
http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/sick-money-how-mitt-romn...

Romney couldn't care less about contraception.

The economy isn't about to improve, there is a major recession coming.

Romney wouldn't create a SINGLE job.
http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/mitt-romneys-bain-experi...

Romney's tax plans.
http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-reality-of-mitt-romn...

Romney in general
http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-case-against-mitt-ro...

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Obviously, we disagree and

Obviously, we disagree and aren't going to change each others mind. On 11/6 we'll see what the American people think.

There is an acceptable protest vote...

writing in Ron Paul. Willard would actually be a worse president than Barry.

I don't play, I commission the league.

For me the problem with

For me the problem with writing in Ron Paul is the write in would not be counted. In my mind that's like not voting and that's an unacceptable option.

just spoke with someone

who is now going to vote obomba ... they were for a long time going to vote green - must have heard the debate last night and are now basing their vote switch on this supreme court idea. Really sad.

How in the world is that sad? That person is incredibly smart.

He/she apparently realizes that if Romney gets elected, Roe v. Wade will most likely be overturned within the next decade, if not before 2016. If a person doesn't give a crap about the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade and only cares about keeping it legal nationally for doctors to suck babies' brains out, dismember them, and throw them in trash cans then it would be stupid to vote for the Green Party candidate instead of Obama.

robot999's picture

After the Roberts

vote on Obamacare, this argument is FAIL.

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

If Romney had a record

of actually appointing conservative judges then I might buy your argument but (as in all things Romney) his record tells a different story.

Mitt Romney is a Liberal, Part 2: Romney appointed liberal judges
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/6634402544/mitt-romney-is-a...

Romney judicial record: Liberals running wild
When GOP candidate had chance to influence bench, he appointed leftists
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/romney-judicial-record-liberals-r...

Romney's record on judicial and legal appointments
Can he be trusted as President to appoint conservatives to the Courts and Justice Department?
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/contrada/111210

SANTORUM: Romney’s record of judicial capitulation
Fixing our judiciary too important to settle for excuses
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/19/romneys-reco...

all the vote for romney trollage is lame and useless

and your lesser of two evils garbage is crap

Well then we should just pull

Well then we should just pull an FDR then and hope for another round of Supreme Court packing.

Southern Agrarian

Obama wins

we lose... Romney wins, we lose. Doesn't matter. Romney won't touch Roe vs. Wade because he is a liberal. Romney will say to Republicans he will overturn Roe vs. Wade, but since he needs to pander to liberals too in order to win a second term, he won't do it.

Supine Court

I have 2 words for you John Roberts.

John Roberts

did not reinterpret the commerce clause as the liberal Justices wanted to. Yes, Obamacare still exists, but, so does Social Security and that is just as unconstitutional. Wanna get rid of Obamacare? You know who to vote for.

"You know who to vote for"

The guy who INVENTED obamacare? I'm voting for Virgil Goode.

Obama and Romney are twins

Whichever is elected President, their nominees will reflect statist thinking. Do not look to the Supreme Court as some kind of bulwark against government overreach. The Supreme Court IS government overreach.

To restate: it doesn't matter which of the two fools becomes President. Therefore, break out of the two-party matrix and either vote for someone worthy of your support, or don't vote. Voting for Romney or Obama will just encourage them, and will make you partially responsible for their subsequent actions.

Would you have voted for Hitler? He was an avowed statist who was supported by people afraid of the Left. Look what they got. And look at the generational guilt they have been carrying.

So, you're essentially saying

there's NO difference whatsoever between Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, NO difference whatsoever between Antonin Scalia and Ruth Ginsburg, and NO difference whatsoever between Thomas Alito and Stephen Breyer? Good grief! I wish I could be a hermit.

Ron Paul has already shown the way.

He gave the pro-life Republicans an opportunity to repeal Roe v. Wade when the so called pro-life Republican Party held the Presidency and controlled both Houses of Congress. He put forward the Sanctity of Life Act and the We The People Act that together would have removed abortion from Federal jurisdiction and defined life as beginning at conception.

In spite of his efforts to demonstrate to the Right to Life institutions that these pieces of legislation would achieve what they claim to be aiming for they rejected his pleas and refused to endorse them. They continue to press for a Constitutional amendment that they know will never fly.

This proves to me at least that they are more interested in their cushy jobs than in saving lives. The whole pro-life movement at the top is a sham. They have made the issue a political football. This propaganda that putting "conservative" judges on the SCOTUS will ensure that Roe v. Wade will fall has been doing the rounds since the late 1970's to my knowledge since I was involved in Christians for Life at that time. The people pushing for it are mostly insincere self seeking political animals because they know it will never happen that way.

@Dixie-Paleocon is too young to have realised that even the pro-life movement has been co-opted. The people working on the ground are doing great work but the upper echelons are all fully politicised and use the issue to divide the electorate and create some semblance of meaning in the political theatre.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Take away jurisdiction

Dr. Paul is very pro-life, so why isn't he swallowing his principles and voting for Romney based on this argument you present? I think this is another scare tactic to get pro-lifers on board with Romney - the all-powerful "SC Justices"! They don't have to be all-powerful. The pro-life groups could intensely pressure their congress critters to take jurisdiction to hear these cases away from the SC. That is the strategy that Ron has advocated.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

I'm not apart of any pro-life groups,

so, I don't know what exactly they do or why they're not educated on the Congress' right to remove jurisdiction from the courts. I can't control what they do, but, I can control the way I vote.

Ron Paul seems to be fixated on monetary and foreign policy. Those are the two key issues that he bases his support on.