Romney’s Justice Advisory Team: Endorsement From Co-Chairs Bork and Glendon

On Tuesday, Mitt Romney announced the backing of a 63 member team of lawyers whose function will be to advise him on homeland security, law enforcement, regulatory issues, and constitutional and judicial matters. On that same day, the esteemed co-chairs of his new Justice Advisory Team, Judge Robert H. Bork & Professor Mary Ann Glendon, wrote a powerful article of endorsement for Governor Romney:

MittRomney.com

TOWARD A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS

August 2, 2011

Today, we join over sixty leaders of the legal profession — private practitioners, corporate lawyers, former judges and executive branch employees, academicians — in expressing our fervent support for Mitt Romney in his run for the presidency.

Each of these individuals has his or her own reasons for supporting Mitt Romney. Our reason is this: America was founded on and owes its freedom and prosperity to rigorous devotion to the Constitution and the rule of law. President Obama lacks dedication to these principles. He has repeatedly attacked the rule of law and the institutions and virtues it protects. Mitt Romney, in contrast, is assiduous in his defense of the distinctive legal heritage that is the bedrock of our society.

Barack Obama’s presidency — marked by unprecedented claims of federal power and executive fiat — has accelerated an imprudent and dangerous drift from the rule of law. We see this drift in three main instances.

First, we are alarmed by President Obama’s abdication of his duty to zealously defend and administer the laws of the United States. In an absolutely unprecedented action, President Obama and his attorney general have refused to defend an important federal statute, the Defense of Marriage Act, in court. This lawlessness is particularly striking, given that the DOMA was passed by large majorities in both Houses of Congress before it was signed by President Clinton. What the administration’s decision seems to reflect is not only the President’s disregard for the rule of law, but his disdain for traditional family values and the people who hold them (people who, as he contemptuously put it, “cling to guns or religion”).

The Obama Administration has also refused to fully enforce federal immigration laws, going so far as to sue states that pass laws to perform the enforcement duties the federal government will not. And in Guantanamo detainee litigation, the administration has declined to make the most obvious legal arguments, apparently for political reasons.

Second, we see the drift in numerous examples of President Obama’s expansion of executive discretion and regulatory power. Most glaring is Obamacare, which constitutes an unprecedented federal usurpation of powers reserved to the states and to the people. Further, both Obamacare and the wide-ranging financial regulatory law have created multiple independent boards with broad mandates to act free from both the ballot box and meaningful oversight. Those same laws have given bureaucrats the discretionary power to grant waivers, the criteria for which are largely unknown. The Environmental Protection Agency has claimed vast powers to regulate carbon emissions despite clear congressional intent to the contrary and widespread popular opposition.
[...]

Bork and Glendon then write of Obama’s disdain for the rule of law in his standard for choosing judges.

They conclude:

We support Mitt Romney because he is committed to restoring a government of laws, and not of men.

(emphasis added

Do read the entire article here.

► Jayde Wyatt