Posted on 12/15/2007 12:16:41 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
From an interview on August 3, 2007:
Governor Huckabee: You know, I looked for people who embodied those very things I just mentioned. A commitment to a strict constructionist view of their job, viewed the Constitution as something that they were simply to apply, not to reinterpret and rewrite. But I also looked for people who embodied the kind of temperament that we needed on the bench, who would, uh, divorce themselves and distance themselves from their own personal passions in the sense of letting their emotions drive them, but [instead] letting the Constitution drive them. And, uh, the kind of people I appointed certainly ended up, uh, for example, one I can think of, that I put on the State Supreme Court…President Bush appointed him to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. An outstanding young jurist named Lavenski Smith that I’ve known since I was in grade school. And he’s a person that embodies the kind of person we need on the bench, he, uh, has a deep respect for God, for this country and its Constitution, and, uh, almost approaches his job with a sense of fear and trembling, to make sure that he does it in such a way that he has a clear conscience.
What kind of judge is Lavenski Smith? In a critique of his record on the Arkansas Supreme Court, Before Huckabee secured his appointment to the federal appeals court, the Bench and Bar of Minnesota, the official publication of the Minnesota State Bar Association said the following:
"Since joining the court, Judge Smith has authored approximately 100 majority opinions, two concurring opinions, and seven dissenting opinions. His opinions appear to place him slightly to the left of center on the court ideologically, but with some unpredictability. He has dissented three times in search-and-seizure cases, each time taking the position that investigating officers did not comply with the 4th Amendment. He also joined an en banc dissent favoring the suppression of a criminal defendant’s confession on the ground it was involuntary. In employment discrimination cases, he has written a dissenting opinion to oppose a remittitur from $200,000 to $10,000,10 and he has joined in an en banc dissent that took the position that an employee could prove a claim of race discrimination in a promotion even though he never formally applied for the position." link
On the Eighth Circuit, he has continued as a moderate liberal according to conservative legal commentator Hans Bader at the Scotus blog:
"Lavenski Smith has turned out to be ever-so- slightly left-of-center on the Eighth Circuit, left of that Circuit’s center on race discrimination claims, and willing to uphold some restrictions on anti-abortion signs (that latter fact is surprising given his pre-judicial litigation work with the Rutherford Institute). Despite his once conservative background, he now seems to be a moderate with some liberal tendencies." link
In the abortion case, Frye v. Kansas City Mo. Police Department,375 F.3d 785 (8thCir. 2004), Judge Smith joined the other liberals on the court in voting to allow police to arrest peaceful prolife demonstrators assembled on public property and to effectively censor their prolife signs, with impunity, if the police deemed the contents of the signs to be offensive.
Do the evangelicals in Iowa know that, if they vote for Huckabee, this is the kind of judge they would get? Fred Thompson can point with pride to his successful sponsorship of Chief Justice John Roberts. With Thompson, you can be absolutely certain you will get conservative constitutionalists. With Huckabee.....
Mike Huckabee would be a worse President than Jimmy Carter.
i agree. He’s a bleeding heart Christian....just like Carter.
Ping!
Unlike Carter, the Huckster has no election prospects. He is the worst of the lot. I prefer any other candidate except Ron Paul to the Huckster. The Huckster cannot be trusted on any major issue.
And that’s pretty bad.
Hey Dano1/Dane:
How do you defend this?
I am sure you will, but I just want to hear it.
Ann Coulter talked about this judge...she did not approve.
no he is a humanist “Christian”...
if in fact he is indeed a Christian then that would be his only redeeming quality.
Were all of Ronald Reagan’s appointees to the SCOTUS glowing conservative successes???????
“Were all of Ronald Reagan’s appointees to the SCOTUS glowing conservative successes???????”
No. But they didn’t have major red flags attached to them when he nominated them. And he certainly did not cite them as models. There are so many great conservative judges you could cite all over the country. He picks the guy who he’s friends with. Harriet Meiers redux. No thanks.
Agreed, and now we have “wonderful” hindsight to prove what judges like these will do in their rulings while on the Supreme Court.
Levenski Smith is from Hope.
“In the abortion case, Frye v. Kansas City Mo. Police Department,375 F.3d 785 (8thCir. 2004), Judge Smith joined the other liberals on the court in voting to allow police to arrest peaceful prolife demonstrators assembled on public property and to effectively censor their prolife signs, with impunity, if the police deemed the contents of the signs to be offensive.”
Tell me exactly how you are going to get a Human Life Amendment through the state legislatures if the local police have the authority to arrest you on public property and to censor your speech.
Levenski Smith is from Hope.
Wonder how much he donated to any of Hucks campaigns or what kind of gifts he gave to Huck and the wife and family.
Probably very little. He was a Legal Services attorney when selected for the state supreme court.
Unfortunately James Madison didn't foresee the day when judges would make the laws.
Conservatives have learned a lot on the subject of picking judges since Ronald Reagan was President. We need a President who will continue to make progress on this issue.
It is interesting to me though that they would say this judge is slightly to the left of center and then follow that by saying he’s dissented twice in search and seizure cases where he thought law enforcement violated the 4th Amendment and once in a case where he thought a confession should be suppressed because it was involuntary. Are conservative judges never supposed to rule against law enforcement if they think officers have violated the 4th Amendment or coerced a confession? I would hope conservative judges would follow the law and uphold the Constitution, even if that means sometimes ruling that evidence was illegally obtained. If being a conservative judge means you have to give carte blanche to law enforcement to do whatever they want to do, then we don’t need conservative judges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.