Romney also has a record of state judicial appointments- it's not a conservative record:
amycontrada.com
.... Romney’s radical judge appointees
Conservatives may legitimately question Romney’s pro-abortion and sexual-radical appointees: the judges, high-level staffers, and policy makers whose goal is to undermine traditional social values and radically transform society. Homosexual and transgender activists played major roles in Governor Romney’s campaign, transition team, and Departments of Public Health, Social Services, and Education. They pushed their policies and propaganda into state agencies, medical offices, and public schools at every level. [9]
The Boston GLBT newspaper Bay Windows happily catalogued Romney’s “gay” appointees, knowing that they would use their offices to promote their causes. Their “sexual orientation” was not just a private matter, as Romney would have us believe, but carried a political agenda. The lead attorney for “gay marriage” in Massachusetts explained, “As feminists in the 1970s rightly noted, and other civil rights and social justice movements found out, the personal is political, or at least it can become so.” [10] Yet as Governor, Romney chose to ignore this obvious fact.
Romney appointed at least two homosexual activist judges, and even bragged about it:
I’ve appointed approximately 60 judges, one or two of whom... one of whom I’m quite confident is gay, the other may be gay as well. I think he probably is, and there may be more for all I know. But I’ve never asked a judicial candidate, “are you gay?” and discriminated against them on that basis. Nor, if I look in their resume and there’s an indication of their being gay, I don’t then delve into it and say, “Gee, are you gay yourself, or are you in support of gay issues?” I believe that in America, we should not discriminate against people on the basis of our differences. [11]
A Romney web site (“Gay Judges”) [12] proudly notes his outreach to pro-gay-rights legal groups. He encouraged their members to apply for judicial openings. Supposedly, the chairman of Romney’s judicial nominating committee could be counted on to be conservative as a member of the Federalist Society. However, he was complicit in this alliance with feminist and sexual-radical attorneys:
Romney’s appointee to the chairmanship of the Judicial Nominating Commission, Boston lawyer Christopher D. Moore, has reached out to minority and women’s bar associations to encourage members to apply. He’s done the same with the state lesbian and gay bar association, which also has a seat on Romney’s joint bar committee... [13] [Emphasis added.]
The inclusion of these bar associations certainly satisfied the Governor’s new requirement that all nominees had to be members of the bar. But it gives the lie to his claim that his new selection process would be free of politics. What are radical feminism and gay rights advocacy about, if not politics?
The Women’s Bar Association included many radical feminist members, revealing its stripes in 2000 when it honored GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) lesbian activist attorney Mary Bonauto, who would argue the Goodridge “gay marriage” case before the courts . [14] And certainly many of the Women’s Bar members were promoters of the long-standing pro-woman gender bias in the family courts regarding divorce, child custody, and restraining orders. [15] Was Governor Romney ready to listen to the other side? The Fatherhood Coalition cofounder, Mark Charalambous, said in February 2003:
While we are hopeful that in the long run Mitt will turn out to be a good Governor for the Commonwealth as a whole with respect to the state's financial and economic woes, the state's non-custodial fathers in Massachusetts have no reason to be optimistic. Mitt has not responded to any of our overtures for a dialogue, neither during the campaign nor since taking office.
He is apparently continuing the pattern of his Republican predecessors in viewing fathers’ rights as some kind of subset of women’s issues. We have been told that he is putting our issues in Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey's domain – which is bad news for us since Healey is a victim/feminism partisan who claims some kind of authority/expertise in domestic violence. This is bad news not just for non-custodial fathers, but for all males.
Romney's refusal to respond to our overtures indicates to me that he intends to follow in Weld and Cellucci's footsteps. He has so far ignored our concerns about the anti-father bias in the courts and the domestic violence, child abuse, and child support regimes that are crucifying fathers in the name of protecting women and providing for children. He has instead gone so far as to appoint Judith Beals, the discredited former spokesman for Jane Doe [ultra-feminist group against “domestic violence”], to his transition team. [16] [Emphasis added.]
Things did not improve for fathers in the family courts during Romney’s tenure.
The Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association (MLGBA during Romney’s term), has recently added “transgender” and “queer” to its name: It’s now the Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association. [17] Through that group, Romney was effectively seeking candidates who (in MLGBA’s own words in 2006) were “dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated.” [18]
The MLGBA attorneys had argued for years that the statute criminalizing sodomy (“the abominable and detestable crime against nature, whether with mankind or with a beast,” Ch. 272, Section 34) should be overturned. Romney seemed to agree in an interview with the Boston homosexual newspaper Bay Windows (in 1994). [19] And he was on record since 1994 as supporting “gay rights” and non-discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.” So it’s not surprising he reached out to this group to apply for judgeships.
In 1999, the MLGBA had honored Justice Margaret Marshall of the Massachusetts high court (later the Chief Justice behind the 2003 Goodridge “gay marriage” ruling) as keynote speaker at their annual fundraiser dinner. There she advocated extending rights for homosexuals and transgenders. This clearly exhibited her partiality on the “gay marriage” issue. The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that judges must be impartial. [20] Yet Governor Romney chose to ignore this, refusing to support the grassroots activists’ call to remove her from office after her clearly biased and unconstitutional Goodridge ruling.
Though Romney held the country’s attention in 2003-2004 during the “gay marriage” constitutional crisis, he failed to lead as a conservative and check the errant judges. That may be all one needs to know about his true commitment to constitutional principles. [21]
These two radical groups – the Women’s Bar Association and the MLGBA (later the MLGBTQ Bar Association) – were later instrumental in pushing the “transgender rights and hate-crimes” bill (passed in November 2011). [22] Yet they had been full-fledged participants in Romney’s judicial selection process.
One of Romney’s known homosexual judge appointees to district court was Stephen Abany (in May 2005). [23] Romney would have known Abany’s “sexual orientation” because he was an activist for gay-rights causes. Abany, a board member of the MLGBA, had testified at the State House in 1999 advocating repeal of the Massachusetts law criminalizing sodomy. [24] Such activism and glaring opposition to Romney’s stated support for traditional marriage apparently did not keep him from making this appointment.
A second homosexual (or at least, openly pro-gay-rights) judge was Marianne Hinkle:
Another Romney choice for the bench is Marianne C. Hinkle, a registered Democrat who worked as an aide to Governor Michael S. Dukakis in the late 1970s and prosecuted John C. Salvi III in the 1994 Brookline abortion clinic shootings. Hinkle, in her application for the bench, describes herself as a longtime active member of Dignity/USA, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights in the Catholic Church and society generally. [25]
There was likely a third “gay” appointee, since Romney told the National Journal that his second likely “gay” appointee was a “he.”
If Romney were truly supportive of traditional values, he would not have made these appointments. A RedState blogger commented (in 2007), “From 2005, the heart of his governorship, Romney’s appointments tilted left. Yet conservatives are lining up behind this guy? His one power to move Mass to the right a bit and he didn’t. And we’re to trust him?” [26]
Romney said he paid no notice to “his nominees’ political leanings or sexual orientation”
Governor Romney insisted that “his nominees' political leanings or sexual orientation” did not concern him.
With increased attention on judicial nominees after President Bush’s nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the US Supreme Court, Romney said Friday that he has not paid a moment’s notice to his nominees’ political leanings or sexual orientation or to the impact his choices might have on a future presidential run. He said he has focused on two factors: their legal experience and whether the nominees would be tough on crime….
.....
.....
Romney not even tough on crime?
Recall that Romney assured that his judge appointees would be tough on crime. So he was quite distressed in November 2007 (during his first run for the Republican nomination) by a scandal Time Magazine referred to as “This Year’s Willie Horton.” [43] One of his district court judge appointees shockingly freed without bail a man convicted of murdering his own mother. Shortly after his release, the convict killed a young couple in Washington state. Note that the female judge was just one of Romney’s many appointees made, apparently, to please the Women’s Bar Association:
Twenty months after he put a career prosecutor on the Massachusetts Superior Court bench, confident in her law-and-order credentials, Mitt Romney called yesterday for the judge to resign because she released without bail a convicted killer who went on to allegedly kill again.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, said yesterday that Judge Kathe M. Tuttman should never have freed Daniel T. Tavares Jr. on personal recognizance in July, after he was charged with assaulting two prison guards. Tavares, 41, was near the end of a 16-year sentence for stabbing his mother to death in 1991 and had threatened in a letter – intercepted by prison officials in February 2006 – to kill Romney and other state officials, Fehrnstrom said.
On Monday, after five months in hiding, Tavares was arrested for allegedly shooting to death Brian Mauck, 30, and Beverly Mauck, 28, newlyweds who lived near him in a rural area south of Tacoma, police said.
Romney is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, touting his record as governor. Some of his female supporters have highlighted his record of appointing women to the judiciary.
“There was a system-wide failure in this case starting with the judge,” Fehrnstrom said in a statement yesterday. “Her decision represented an inexplicable lapse in judgment and was inexcusable. Unless there are facts unknown to us, Governor Romney believes Judge Tuttman should resign.” [44] [Emphasis added.]
The Time Magazine piece quotes Romney’s fellow Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on the crime rate in Massachusetts during Romney’s term:
On the campaign trail former New York mayor Giuliani has called on Romney to explain his decision to appoint Judge Tuttman. "It's not an isolated incident," Giuliani told the Associated Press, offering FBI crime statistics that he said showed a 7.5% increase in murders in Massachusetts while Romney was governor and a 12% increase in robberies during the same period. "The reality is, he did not have a record of reducing violent crime," Mr. Giuliani told the AP.
Romney has reacted by calling on Judge Tuttman to step down, describing her decision in the Tavares case inexcusable. The seriousness with which he has responded suggests that his advisors, like some political observers, see the Tavares case as similar to the 1988 Willie Horton incident, which famously hurt former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis in his run for the presidency. [45]
The Boston Herald had even more damning information:
Former Gov. Mitt Romney’s administration failed to act on disciplinary recommendations that would have kept ex-con killer Daniel Tavares locked up another year - and behind bars at the time he was accused of killing a newlywed couple in Washington state.
Romney has decried the early release of Tavares by a judge, but the “good time” could have been revoked administratively while he was governor under the state prison disciplinary process, sources said. …
The investigation into the Tavares case found that the Romney administration mistakes were part of a broader pattern of lapses that stretched back to 1993. Overall, the probe uncovered six disciplinary complaints against Tavares between 1993 and 2005 that should have kept him in prison a total of 720 days, nearly two years beyond his release in July.
Despite Tavares’ long history of violence, the Romney-led Department of Correction took no action on recommendations that he be stripped of “good time” because of assaults on prison guards in 2003 and 2005, said sources familiar with a state probe into the case.
… sources said the single most egregious breakdown came under Romney in 2003, when administration officials missed a 60-day deadline for filing paperwork to strip Tavares of 300 days of previously awarded “good time.” [46]
“Tough on crime”? Somehow the Romney campaign has managed to bury that story this time around.
..... |
