Being the swing vote on an evenly-divided US Supreme Court must be as close to being the King as there is in America. Your decision, on whichever side it lands, is final. That doesn't seem like what the inventors had in mind.

This issue is, in my opinion, more important (or at least equal to) repealing Obamacare.  Which means really, really important.

Do any Ricoteers from Massachusetts have any history on if/how Gov. Romney handled court appoitments when he served?

Let's be clear. What Roberts (and Kennedy) stand for is institutional stability; even if Romney replaces a Democrat justice with a rock-ribbed conservative, it would simply mean that Roberts and Kennedy would vote more consistently with the remaining 3 liberals to maintain the precedential status quo. There might be some headway on the affirmative action and voting rights front (next term will tell), but repeal of Roe v Wade, dramatic change in First Amendment religion cases? I wouldn't hold my breath.

"A Romney presidency does not guarantee conservative justices, but another Obama term absolutely guarantees more liberal justices."

At this point, the above is all the matters. Concern about Romney's hypothetical picks is irrelevant at this point, since the only alternative is the iron clad guarantee that Obama's picks, even if a hypothetical Republican senate could reject the most extreme nominees, will be committed leftists. Forget turning around the country after 8 years of Obama. a 6-4 leftist majority could simply invalidate any serious Republican legislation on "social justice" grounds. Conservatism in America will be finished.

On the other hand, we'll have the power to deal with another Harriet Miers. Conservatives were able to force Bush to rescind that foolish nomination, and this long before the Tea Party. We could do it again if needed.

Nail. Head.

It's critical to remember that Romney is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan. At best, all he will do is slow down the creeping statism of Obama.

At the same time, it is absolutely imperative that we at least slow down said creeping statism.

Therefore, it's absolutely essential that conservatives hold their noses and vote Romney. If enough conservatives decide that a principled defeat is better than getting half a loaf with a Romney Administration, and sit home, the nation as a whole is doomed.

All true, but let's keep in mind that we didn't actually lose ground with the Robert's decision, we just didn't get the repudiation of 70 years of terrible precedent we had hoped for. Right, in any given case that goes to the court, we at least have an outside chance of a favorable ruling and, at the least, an attempt will be made to take the Constitution into consideration. 

With an Obama Court been in place the result will be a forgone conclusion. It'll be pointless to even make the appeal.

This is one big reason why I think it's important that Romney choose a running mate like Rubio - it would demonstrate an alliance with - and serve to highlight - the exceptional next generation of Republicans. While Obama is running as either a transcendent figure or a necessary bulwark against manufactured boogymen the Republicans are a dynamic party of ideas and thoughtful up-and-comers with actual solutions.

Adam:  I appreciate all your posts, but here I have to disagree.  The appallingly poor record of GOP nominees to the Court (for the last 60 years!) is all the more reason not to roll the dice yet again and vote for Romney but to withhold one's vote until the GOP understands that nothing short of a courageous conservative is acceptable as a nominee.

So, Leporello, I take that as a vote to let the whole shebang go down the dumper just to make a point. That would not fall into my category of intelligent strategies. A football team doesn't win by waiting until the other team' blockers take a break. They grind it out. A baseball team doesn't refuse to send its runners around the bases except for home runs. They take singles and then steal when they can. An investor doesn't sit on his money until he has a guarantee that his business will be profitable. He puts his money at risk and then watches it carefully. And a voter who believes in his ideals doesn't withhold his vote until he can get everything he wants. He takes the best he can get and then keeps the pressure on to get more. That's how you win.

If we do that this time, we will be in a similar situation to Greece within 0's second term, and there may not be any United States of America for a Perfect Conservative President to "save" in 2016.

Half a loaf is definitely better than no loaf at all.

Let's say the American Constitutional Republic is a bridge. The current Bridge Commissioner says "This bridge has never really worked. We need to blow this one and get the rich to give all their money to the Bridge Commission and we'll build the right kind of bridge - Our Progressive philosophers will be in charge of constructing the new 'Bridge of Rights.' "

And you say you're going to stay away from elections for Bridge Commissioner until you see a Major Award winner from the American Society of Civil Engineers in the running?

If there were no legislation, the work of the Supreme Court would be much reduced in scope and importance. The correct goal is not to get 9 Clarence Thomases (or even Richard Epsteins) on the Supreme Court, but to persuade the legislature to get the heck out of everyone's lives. An activist electorate gives rise to an activist judiciary; an electorate that rewards humility and restraint will call forth those qualities even from the Supreme Court.

This is a battle - for individual liberty and responsibility - that must be won in (what is left of) civil society. Relying on 9 - or even 5 - folks in black robes to be the conscience of a nation while that nation elects fools and knaves is not a winning strategy.

please not fluke. she wouldn't even have the decency to recuse herself when contraceptives in the health care bill comes up.

Tom,

I take it that no matter how many times GOP presidents nominate liberal justices, you're going to vote for that GOP presidential candidate every single time.  How's that strategy worked out so far?  Have entitlements shrunk?  Has there been a net decrease in spending?  Have leftist judicial precedents been overturned (excepting the Heller gun case)? 

You claim to know how to win.  Tell us how the Ike, Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, and Bush 2 administrations have been victories for liberty and conservatism.  Don't tell us how statism has been slowed, but how it has been defeated, overturned, destroyed.  Please tell.

Incorrect.  First, we don't get half a loaf with Romney, but maybe a quarter of a loaf.  Second, it's far worse when the GOP approves of leftism than when the Democratic Party does.  When a GOP president expands entitlements (as both Bushes did, for instance), it means the game is up and conservatives have surrendered.  When GOP-nominated justices put their stamp of approval on blatantly unconstitutional acts, they pull out the ground from under conservatives' feet. 

A quarter of a loaf is still better than no loaf.

It all comes down to this:

• You are willing to let the country to down the tubes in the name of ideological purity.
• I am not.

And that's that.

Eeyore:  That Bridge of Rights was built by FDR long ago.  Ike refused to tear it down; he left it as is.  Nixon did the same (or rather, he expanded it), and so did Ford.  Bush 1 and Bush 2 did the same.  You can't win the battle for conservatism if you don't make the conservative arguments, promote conservative policies, and choose conservative justices.  You don't do anything for the country if you accept Progressive government but promise to manage it better.  

How is it that every single presidential election is the most important and we must always vote for the GOP nominee no matter what? 

Serious questions:  Do you truly not regret supporting GWB, after everything he did to increase statism?  Nor his father?  Do you sincerely believe the entire future of the nation was at stake in the elections of 1988 and 2000, and if Dukakis or Gore had won, everything would be over by now? 

I doubt you do.  Yet you make the same argument again now.  It's as false now as it ever was.