Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


What Does Mitt Romney Think About Chief Justice John Roberts?

Bookmark and Share

A look back at what Romney and the 2012 GOP field said about the now controversial Chief Justice who wrote to uphold most of the Affordable Care Act

johnroberts10.jpgMitt Romney may have had to mince words over the last year when explaining his support for his Massachusetts health care plan and his opposition to "Obamacare."

However, the Republican 2012 presidential nominee has been quite clear of his support and respect for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote the decision upholding most of the president's health care plan on Thursday.

First, consider Romney's campaign website.

From the Courts & The Constitution section the campaign says:

"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called "the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected": a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning."

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - along with Justice Kennedy - were the four 'no' votes on the key individual mandate provision of the ACA.

Second, Romney's praise of Chief Justice Roberts was reiterated in the GOP presidential debates.

In the 13th debate in Sioux City, Iowa on December 15th, FOX News moderator Megyn Kelly asked the GOP hopefuls, "And quickly down the line, favorite current Supreme Court justice."

Romney listed four with the Chief Justice first in line:

"Yes. Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia."

In the 14th debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire on January 7th, ABC News moderator George Stephanopoulos and Romney got into an exchange on rights to privacy and gave Roberts another endorsement:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you've got the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.

ROMNEY: I don't believe they decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. It was based upon that same principle. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it's in the federal Constitution.

Romney, of course, was not the only Republican presidential candidate to give the Chief Justice accolades during the 2012 campaign.

In response to Megyn Kelly's question about their favorite Supreme Court justice at the Sioux City, Iowa debate, Roberts was listed by Rick Perry:

"And I would say, you know, you pick Alito, Roberts, Thomas, pick one."

Whose list was echoed by Newt Gingrich:

"I think that is a pretty darned good list. And I would sign up for those guys. Scalia is probably the most intellectual of the four. They're all four terrific judges. I mean, if we had nine judges as good as those four we would be happy with the Supreme Court."

And Michele Bachmann:

"Well, I do think that there are good justices. And I would put Antonin Scalia at the top of the list. I would also include Clarence Thomas and John Roberts and Alito. I think they are all marvelous. It could be easy to pick any one of them."

And Jon Huntsman:

"And as I reflect on those who today serve I've got to say Justice Roberts and Justice Alito fit the bill very, very nicely."

Only Ron Paul did not fall in line with the rest of the candidates on the stage:

"All of them are good and all of them are bad. How is that?"

How many Republicans will start walking back their endorsements of Chief Justice Roberts after today's decision?

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Oklahoma GOP Poised to Run Table in US House Races for Just 3rd Time Since Statehood
Next post: McCain, Rubio, GOP Dominate Broadcast Media Coverage of US Senators in 2012

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Strange Bedfellows: A Historical Review of Divided US Senate Delegations

Over the last century, states have been twice as likely to be represented by a single political party in the U.S. Senate than have a split delegation; only Delaware, Iowa, and Illinois have been divided more than half the time.

Political Crumbs

Haugh to Reach New Heights

The North Carolina U.S. Senate race between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis may go down to the wire next Tuesday, but along the way Libertarian nominee Sean Haugh is poised to set a state record for a non-major party candidate. Haugh, who previously won 1.5 percent of the vote in the Tar Heel State's 2002 race, has polled at or above five percent in 10 of the last 12 polls that included his name. The current high water mark for a third party or independent candidate in a North Carolina U.S. Senate election is just 3.3 percent, recorded by Libertarian Robert Emory back in 1992. Only one other candidate has eclipsed the three percent mark - Libertarian Christopher Cole with 3.1 percent in 2008.


Gubernatorial Highs and Lows

Two sitting governors currently hold the record for the highest gubernatorial vote ever received in their respective states by a non-incumbent: Republican Matt Mead of Wyoming (65.7 percent in 2010) and outgoing GOPer Dave Heineman of Nebraska (73.4 percent in 2006). Republican Gary Herbert of Utah had not previously won a gubernatorial contest when he notched a state record 64.1 percent for his first victory in 2010, but was an incumbent at the time after ascending to the position in 2009 after the early departure of Jon Huntsman. Meanwhile, two sitting governors hold the record in their states for the lowest mark ever recorded by a winning gubernatorial candidate (incumbent or otherwise): independent-turned-Democrat Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (36.1 percent in 2010) and Democrat Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (47.8 percent in 2013).


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting