Here's an interesting story about one of Mitt Romney's judicial appointees from his days as governor. Mitt appointed a judge who ordered the release of a convicted murder (after he had served his sentence) and he went across the country and has been accused of killing two more people. Mitt's campaign has said:
Tuttman, a career prosecutor, had a reputation that suggested she would be a "law-and-order" judge.
"Otherwise, she never would have been appointed."
Because there are only two types of judges: "law-and-order" judges who lock everyone up and "librul activist" judges who think that murderers should be set free... even after they serve their sentences.
Even worse is that Giuliani's egging Romney on, saying this is part of Romney's lack of commitment to fighting violent crime and that he's throwing the judge "under the bus." (I'm sure Rudy's gay friends who took him in after his second divorce could teach him a thing or two about being thrown under buses.)
Rudy's campaign is saying that the judge should have known that this guy would kill again because some guards towards the end of his sentence were accusing him assault. Of course, he doesn't say anything about what this case says about rehabilitation in Massachusetts prisons, the evidence behind those new charges, or that Massachusetts law would require people to be locked up on assault charges before they've been convicted. Just lock 'em up and throw away the key, who cares about what the law says!
But now two of the Republican front-runners are duking it out over who'll politicize the judiciary more to take away those pesky rights that prevent the government from locking us up on trumped up charges. There are the limited judiciary Republicans for you!