After the Supreme Court’s health care mandate ruling, a lot of people — me included — had fun pointing out that on Mitt Romney’s campaign website he explicitly said he would appoint judges “in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts.” Now Romney says he’s off the list:
CBS reporter Jan Crawford asked the Republican nominee if he’d still nominate a justice like the Bush-appointed Roberts, knowing what he knows now.
“Well, I certainly wouldn’t nominate someone who I knew was gonna come out with a decision I violently disagreed with — or vehemently, rather, disagreed with,” Romney said. “And he reached a conclusion I think that was not accurate and not an appropriate conclusion. But that being said, he’s a very bright person and I’d look for individuals that have intelligence and believe in following the Constitution.”
Here’s what I wonder: Does anyone actually believe him when he says this? I’ve known pathological liars who actually convinced themselves that people believed them, even when they knew that others knew they were lying. I think about that when viewing Romney on this issue. Can anyone seriously believe that he opposes the health care reform bill? It’s clearly based on his own bill in Massachusetts. I don’t see how anyone takes him seriously when he says things like this.
13 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
jufulu
July 10, 2012 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Romney is completely serious and really meant what he said. He will continue to mean it for at least two more hours.
eric
July 10, 2012 at 12:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think he opposes any bill that will reduce his chances of getting elected. Content of said bill is irrelevant. So in a way, Romney is serious. He opposes this bill, regardless of what’s actually in it.
fifthdentist
July 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Guess Romney’s folks gave the Etch-a-Sketch an extra good shake:
“But a series of emails obtained by the Wall Street Journal reveals Romney was actively engaged in negotiating the specifics of the 2006 Massachusetts bill and that he and his top aides championed a provision identical to one in President Obama’s law requiring individuals to have or buy health insurance.
“The so-called individual mandate is at the heart of most conservative criticism of Obama’s health care law, with many Republicans calling the provision unconstitutional. But in 2006, emails obtained by the Journal under a public records request show, Romney and his top aides pressed for an individual mandate even when Massachusetts Democrats weren’t yet embracing such a proposal.”
– http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/romney-pushed-individual-mandate-massachusetts-health-care-law/story?id=16498820#.T_xZjHDISUc
d cwilson
July 10, 2012 at 12:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Romney always stands behind what he said, whatever it was.
A question I ask myself virtually every time Mitt opens his mouth.
thisisaturingtest
July 10, 2012 at 12:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The more I read that, the less I see where Romney actually said anything at all, which is vintage Romney. On the one hand: “not if I know that they’re going to make decisions I will disagree with…” (duh). OTOH- “I like bright. Bright is good, so maybe…”
baal
July 10, 2012 at 1:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He’s consistent after a fashion – every side of every issue.
Randomfactor
July 10, 2012 at 1:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He hasn’t changed his website. Or maybe it flip-flops on alternate days.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution
slc1
July 10, 2012 at 1:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The only principle that Romney has is that he should be elected president. Everything else is negotiable.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
July 10, 2012 at 2:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It has nothing to do with the proper reading of the Constitution to these guys. It’s about whether they’ll render an opinion that follows through with their own opinions, damned be the consequences.
Rip Steakface
July 10, 2012 at 3:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bill Maher, horribly fallible as he is, has one good thing to say about Romney: he has no principles. He might be willing to do something liberal if it meant getting elected or making money. Just gotta convince him it’s worth it.
Of course, the chances of that are between none and zilch, but it’s worth a shot.
thalwen
July 10, 2012 at 3:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Romney is a rich man, and a rich man likes to have lots of everything – cars, houses, opinions.
twincats
July 10, 2012 at 6:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Had to scratch my head when I read the headline because the first Roberts that came to mind was Pat, cuz why would Pat Roberts be on Mitt’s Xmas list to begin with?
jakc
July 12, 2012 at 9:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s hard to imagine a more Mittian decision by a justice than Robert’s principled decision to abandon principle.