Jeff Roberson/AP Photo
by James Oliphant
A few months back, Rudy Giuliani put together a group of advisors on legal policy, a who’s who of Washington heavy hitters and legal scholars that seemed to guarantee that if Giuliani is elected president, the conservative legal revolution will continue at full steam.
Apparently, there’s plenty of conservative firepower to spare. Mitt Romney has assembled a similar group, one that, at first blush, may represent an even stronger nod to values voters in the party.
Romney’s committee is chaired by Mary Ann Glendon and Douglas Kmeic, two Catholic legal scholars known for their strong anti-abortion stands.
Some other members of the committee include:
Jay Sekulow, the most prominent Supreme Court advocate for the religious right; chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
Wendy Long, chief counsel of the Judicial Confirmation Network, an advocacy group for conservative federal judicial nominees; former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.
Bradley Smith, a former chair of the Federal Election Commission known for his opposition to campaign finance reform laws.
Stephen Presser, a law professor at Northwestern University.
Timothy Flanigan, a former high-level lawyer in the Bush White House and now the general counsel for Tyco International. Flanigan was nominated to the number two post at the Justice Department in 2005, but had to withdraw because of concerns over his relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his role in crafting interrogation policies for suspected terrorists.
Two more former members of that White House legal shop, Bradford Berenson and David Leitch, are also on Romney’s committee, as well as some key former policy makers in the Bush Justice Department such as Michelle Boardman, Jamie Brown, and Kristi Remington.
Romney has pledged to nominate judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas if elected president. A number of former clerks to both justices are on his committee as well.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I'm surprised that Mitt (flip) Romney (flop) hasn't pulled his sons off the battlefields of Iowa and hired them to advise him on policy.
Willard is on BOTH sides of every issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PURfrORhWPc&mode=related&search=
Posted by: John E | October 3, 2007 2:46 PM
Scalia and Thomas are radical, right wing activitists and promising more of them will do Mitt more harm than good in the general election.
When Mitt rushes to the middle if nominated, we must remember to point out his plans for the Supreme Court.
Thomas has just published a book that demonstrates how unsuitable he is as a Supreme Court Justice.
Posted by: c. perry | October 3, 2007 2:57 PM
What conservative legal revolution?
The main source of federal laws is the Congress and the administrative agencies under Duh'bya. If one looks just at Congress, its product in laws bears no resemblance to laws it would produce were it part of some conservative legal revolution. A conservative legal revolution in Congress would mean that – for once in more than sixty years – the Congress actually gave a rat’s ass about staying within constitutional boundaries. I’m not going to hold my breath until that happens.
The embarrasing fact that unelected and politically unaccountable officials in administrative agencies write what are the equivalent of laws (e.g. “regulations”), and that the laws they write receive neither congressional nor presidential approval, unmistakably demonstrates that the process of lawmaking isn’t conservative whatsoever.
If one is trying to say there some “conservative legal revolution” exists because the Supreme Court has shifted toward conservatism, that is hardly a revolution. The Supreme Court only gets to act on real controversies between parties, at least one of whom stands to suffer injury based on the effect of a law. That makes the courts the weakest forum for a revolution in a number of respects.
First of all, courts are passive. They can’t go ranging through the social and legal fabric at will to find something they don’t like and then change it. They have to wait until someone brings a lawsuit to challenge something.
Second, their range of action depends largely upon the laws that Congress and administrative agencies write. Their job is to interpret the laws, and not to re-write them or second-guess their wisdom. Thus, if they are guided by non-conservative legislation, they have little room to move toward conservatism, much less sustain a “conservative legal revolution” of any sort.
Third, a large number of laws exist which represent the “core” of mislabeled “liberal” values which no one has any standing to challenge, or which no one with standing would dare challenge. The laws creating and regulating the federal welfare state fall into this category. You don’t see the Supreme Court or lower, federal courts dealing with these laws any more because recipients of these programs have a hard time showing “injury.” The courts have already held that being a taxpayer doesn’t give a party “standing” to challenge government spending excesses or unwise legislation. The only taxpayer standing would be to challenge the social security payroll tax – which the court already decided was “constitutional” (albeit erroneously) back in 1936; and no one has had the temerity to re-visit that issue since then.
Fourth, of all the hot button issues, the largest ones – abortion rights - have already been reaffirmed by the current court. If that one was re-affirmed, then the most one could expect from a conservative court, or even a more conservative court, would amount to nothing more than nibbling around the edges. In addition, when it comes to personal rights and security, or even the hot button issues regarding criminal law and procedure – the current conservative court doesn’t appear to be any better or worse than it has been over the last 40 years.
Wow, what a revolution.
Posted by: John W. | October 3, 2007 4:05 PM
* * * * *
Thomas has just published a book that demonstrates how unsuitable he is as a Supreme Court Justice.
Posted by: c. perry | October 3, 2007 2:57 PM
I take it, then, that you've read it? Wonderful!
But, please, do tell what was it in the book that demonstrated "how unsuitable he is as a Supreme Court Justice."
Posted by: John W. | October 3, 2007 4:46 PM
A Justice of the Supreme Court should be able to approach a case with a mind not clouded by hatred for a political group and anger that is sixteen years old. A hatred for half of America is not a good starting point.
Posted by: c. perry | October 3, 2007 5:37 PM
c perry:
If his mind is "clouded by hatred for a political group and anger that is sixteen years old," it sure doesn't show up in the opinions he writes. And I think that's the only place it counts.
Posted by: John W. | October 3, 2007 5:49 PM
Sounds like, as usual, Romney's exceeded the competition in what he can put together.
Posted by: Joseph Antley | October 4, 2007 11:35 AM
I am glad Mitt is bringing on such great people to strengthen and support his campaign. Great job Mitt!
Posted by: David A | October 4, 2007 2:53 PM
People who actually shed their blood on the political battlefield for life, marriage and family issues support the ONLY Republican candidate who has done the same.
Romney was outnumbred in Massachusetts and never once shied away from a fight with the the proabortion and pro-gay marriage lobbies.
Mitt Romney is the only family values WARRIOR in the race.
Posted by: Liz | October 8, 2007 9:41 AM