The Idaho Values Alliance is apparently publicizing a list of questions it claims Governor Romney needs to answer during his visit there this Tuesday. We were sent a copy–perhaps on the mistaken assumption that we are part of his campaign–and it strikes me that some of the questions are rather easy to answer. Like this one:
Congress is currently considering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which includes “sexual orientation” language. Again, such policies are quickly used to silence and punish adherents of traditional views of sexuality.
Thus the second question for Mr. Romney is this: Will you, as president, veto ENDA if it reaches your desk? Or alternatively, if it is in force, will you advocate for its repeal and sign such a repeal?
Governor Romney has already come out against ENDA.
The governor has openly declared his support for a federal marriage amendment, as well as supporting the right of states to amend their own constitutions to protect marriage.
Idaho voters, in November of 2006, by a 63-37% margin, amended their state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and also to prohibit the legal recognition of alternate domestic arrangements.
The question for Gov. Romney, then, is not whether he supports states’ rights in this matter, but this: Do you believe that Idahoans were right to prohibit the legal recognition of homosexual partnerships in our state constitution?
Governor Romney has stumped for such amendments in Massachusetts and South Carolina. Why wouldn’t he support Idaho’s as well?
The governor has publicly stated that he will appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, judges in the mold of John Roberts and Antonin Scalia. Yet, according to the Boston Globe, during his term of office as governor of Massachusetts, 23 of the 36 judges Mr. Romney appointed to the bench were either Democrats or independents who donated to Democrat candidates and causes, and two were leading legal advocates for expanded homosexual rights.
This naturally raises the question as to whether the governor has experienced a similar conversion on judicial appointments, and if so, which current judges are, in his judgment, strict constructionists. It will help to alleviate concerns along this line if the governor can identify current federal judges who meet his criteria and are, in his estimation, originalist judges.
The question for Gov. Romney is this: Will you identify for us, by name, your top five potential candidates for a vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court? That is, if you had to nominate someone tomorrow for a seat on the bench, who are the top five individuals you would consider?
Of course, it would be totally inappropriate for Governor Romney to tap today the five folks he would like to see on the Supreme Court. But the more important point is about his Massachusetts nominations–basically, how little power he had to appoint the folks he wanted–and David has already made it.
Anyway, just some quick thoughts.