Grab a beverage, and be prepared to laugh your ass off.

Pepperdine constitutional Law professor and Romney legal adviser Douglas Kmiec wrote an Oct. 10, 2007, article for National Review Online trumpeting Romney’s promise to appoint judicial conservatives.

“Romney is pledged to name to the Supreme Court individuals with the intellectual qualities and philosophy of judicial restraint of Justice Scalia, Alito and Roberts,” Kmiec wrote.

He added a warning line: “We cannot afford a president who is only faking his attachment to conservative legal principle.”

Sounds good, huh? Let’s look at the record, shall we?

Legal analysts say candidate Romney is different from Gov. Romney.

Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romney’s appointments were constitutional “living document” poster children.

“Many of Romney’s appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different?” Barber asked rhetorically.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Mitt Romney’s actions as governor scream from the rooftops that he cannot be trusted with this most important of presidential responsibilities.”

Barber cites two specific examples of Romney’s radical appointments.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney not only failed in this regard, he appointed a number of very liberal, if not radical, ‘living, breathing’-minded judges to the bench,” Barber said.

Any clues there? Ya think? A fair bit more about the things he’s said vs the things he’s actually done. Leopards, spots, etc.

I’d be willing to lay odds that if you look at the Constitution, Not A Single Word On That Parchment Has Changed. It is NOT a “living, breathing” document, it is the immutable rock that this nation was founded on. “Living, breathing” infers flexible and malleable, like quicksand. You build a building on quicksand, it sinks. You cover a rock with enough dirt, you eventually hide it, but it’s still there to be excavated by those who wish to find it.

The closest precedent would be Nixon and Watergate.  In Obama’s case, there are murdered people, both U.S. and Mexican citizens.  Nixon got whacked for relatively minor crimes.

Even if we excuse the killings, there’s still Holder’s cover up.  The cover up is what ultimately destroyed the Nixon Presidency.

People got pretty angry over Nixon, why not Obama?  Whatever double standard is involved, just isn’t right.

Asks the question, makes the statement, vents the frustration, whatever you wish to look at it as. My answer:

There may BE no double standard, there may well be, most probably IS, grand indignation. You just don’t hear about it, and they ignore it or cover it up. How many people were at the DC TEA Party? 1 Million? 2 Million? And yet all you heard about were “Maybe 100-150,000″. And you may or may not have considered that, but we all know the media is in the tank for O’Bullshit and his minions. Heard anything about the Holder thing on the LSM? Or is it just in the blogs? Exactly.

Many times, people move on after a post, don’t go back to read the comments after they make theirs, and a deep thought answer comes in an earlier post comment that you miss. This, in and of itself, is worth it’s own post. A question asked or a statement made can be a thing you should have said, or triggers an indignation of it’s own that deserves it’s own post. Or reminds you of something that needs to have it’s ashes stirred.

Thank you for that trigger, Dr. Jeff. This one deserved a post of it’s own.

Leo Donofrio, you rock.