Speaking at a campaign event in Colorado today, President Obama laid out the crucial importance  of the Supreme Court in November’s election:
Today is the three-year anniversary of Sonia Sotomayor taking her seat on the Supreme Court. Yesterday was the two-year anniversary of Elena Kagan taking her seat on the Supreme Court. So let's be very clear -- the next President could tip the balance of the Court in a way that turns back the clock for women and families for decades to come. The choice between going backward and moving forward has never been so clear.
The choice has never been so clear. In the Huffington Post  today, People For president Michael Keegan lays out what’s at stake as we pick the man who will pick our next Supreme Court justices:
So who would Romney pick for the Supreme Court? We've gotten a hint from his choice  of former judge Robert Bork as his campaign's judicial advisor. Bork's brand of judicial extremism  was so out of step with the mainstream that a bipartisan majority of the Senate rejected his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987. Bork objected  to the part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that desegregated lunch counters; he defended state laws banning birth control and "sodomy"; he was unabashedly in favor of censorship ; he once ruled that a corporation could order its female employees to be sterilized or be fired. And, though it might not seem possible, since his confirmation battle Bork has gotten even more extreme. 
Any justice appointed by Romney would likely fall in the footsteps of Bork in undermining workers' rights, eliminating civil rights protections, siding with corporations over the rights of individuals, threatening women's reproductive freedom, and rolling back basic LGBT rights. President Obama, on the other hand, has promised to pick more justices who share the constitutional values of Justice Sotomayor.
To learn more about Mitt Romney's dangerous vision for the Supreme Court, visit www.RomneyCourt.com .