Does Romney agree with his adviser Robert Bork’s reactionary ideas? (More)

As we’ve explained previously, Mitt “Severe Conservative” Romney is demonstrating time and again that reactionary conservatives, not moderates, would be running the show if he were to be elected President. Today’s post focuses on Romney’s strong support for Robert Bork, the former federal judge and conservative activist whose 1987 nomination to the Supreme Court by President Reagan was rejected 58-42 by a bi-partisan coalition in the U.S. Senate because of his reactionary views about the Constitution, civil rights, and the role of the courts in protecting individual liberties. Since then, it has become clear that Bork’s views are even more reactionary than they appeared in 1987.

Romney made his support for Bork clear last summer, when he named Bork a co-chair of the campaign’s Justice Advisory Committee. That Committee was established to advise the campaign “on the Constitution, judicial matters, law enforcement, homeland security, and regulatory issues.” It is also clear that Romney’s appointment of Bork was not just a symbolic gesture, as Romney has stated that he wishes that Bork “were already on the Supreme Court.”

Bork claims to take an originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution. But in a new report titled Borking America, People for the American Way has documented how Bork’s real agenda is promoting the a reactionary right-wing agenda on a wide array of issues, including corporate power, reproductive freedom, civil rights, censorship, and the death penalty.

With Romney so willing to publicly support Bork, the important question is how much of Bork’s reactionary agenda does Romney agree with? For example:

The record shows that on issue after issue, Bork has been opposed and even downright hostile to the recognition of equality and individual liberty that is inherent in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The views espoused by Bork raise serious questions about why Romney would put Bork in charge of the campaign’s Justice Advisory Committee, much less desire to see Bork on the Supreme Court. Romney should be compelled to answer whether he agrees with each of the Bork statements identified above and, if Romney says he disagrees, he should be asked why he would want someone like Bork on the Supreme Court. Our nation has already faced the question of Bork on the Supreme Court once, and responded with a resounding no. There is no reason that Romney should be pushing that same extreme agenda again.