The convention is inherently political, so when it comes to the judiciary, many of the delegates think that nominating certain judges means they will render politically favorable decisions.    That, emphatically, is not what it means.  Rule of law means rule of law, without regard to the outcome, e.g., the ballot proposal cases. We're nominating referees to follow the rules coldbloodedly, because the opposite of that are judges who decide cases based on their personal whims and feelings.  Unpredictable, unreliable laws = chaos.

Bob Young came into our caucus at the convention and spoke about the ballot decisions.  His initial reception was, um, cool, but as he explained what "rule of law" meant in this context and connected personally with the delegates, I saw a few light bulbs going on, and he received more enthusiastic applause at the end.  I also had a chance to speak with Brian Zahra, who is (a) extremely smart and (b) the world's nicest guy.  These are good people and excellent judges.  We're lucky to have them, and if we bail on them because we don't like a decision or two, we're "courting" disaster in the form of the Democrat nominees.  Short-sighted and stupid.  

I concur that we have a good and very interesting slate.  A home-schooler for the State Board of Education?  Only in America.  November will be very interesting, indeed.