Skip to comments.Sarah Palin: Horns of a Dilemma
Posted on 03/05/2009 8:00:24 AM PST by techno
Yesterday Governor Sarah Palin chose a woman for the Supreme Court of Alaska who once sat on Planned Parenthood in Alaska and was opposed by social conservatives in Alaska. The other choice was a man who had a history of being a strong environmental activist who many conservatives were not happy with either.
NB:in 2010 the Alaskan people will have their say and can accept her or reject her at that time.
In Alaska the Judicial Council considers 6 candidates and then narrows it down to 2. These two are then submitted to the Governor where one has to be chosen. The Governor is not permitted any other choices. (Governor Murkowski tried to throw it back to the Judicial Council and he was rebuffed.)
Now the question observers ask did Sarah Palin betray the pro-life movement in choosing a candidate that has pro-choice views, by performing a task in which she had virtually no choice or did she have a choice and should she have stood on principle (pro-life) and thrown it back to the Alaskan Judicial Council in defiance knowing that it would most likely be thrown back to her with an attendant controversy and furor that would have caused battle lines to be drawn in Alaska, permanent rifts to arise, and gridlock to occur in the legislature or between the legislature and the Governor?
Frankly, I am pro-life. I don't know the answer. Is Sarah Palin an expedient politician, a target of circumstances, or a villain?
bump for later
If you are given the choice of A or B, and C isn’t listed, if the law doesn’t allow C, choose A or B.. the question is, what does this possibly pro-abortion leaning choice have in way of legal responsibility regarding this issue? Is this a court that hears these cases and/or makes judgments on these cases that will matter? Is this candidate conservative in other areas? There is a lot of information we don’t know to knee jerk any conclusion.
Welcome to Free Republic.
My humble opinion is this:
Throwing it back does nothing. It’s a futile effort, that really doesn’t even have much symbolism, given the recent history. Unfortunately, she was presented with the choices she had and I’m sure made what she felt was the best decision. Of course, I believe a person can be pro-choice/pro-life politically, and see things differently through a judicial eye, but I know nothing of either candidate.
My questions would be: Is the other candidate pro-life? (Being a rabid environmentalist, I doubt it.)What critera did Gov. Palin make the decision on? How did the two candidates match up on other judicial decisions/opinions?
Good point, the so called pro-choice candidate may have been considerably more pro-life than the other choice.. For all we know based on the article, the candidate chosen may have been labeled pro-choice by some group that even considers life of the mother issues as pro-choice.
it’s obvious that the dems set her up with a situation they hope they can throw back at her later.
and this ‘vanity’ sounds an awful lot like a troll/operative testing the waters
She made the best of 2 impossibly bad choices. She took the unusual step of requesting the full dossiers of both candidates before making this decision. The economic well-being of all Alaskans probably weighed heavily in her decision.
Alaskans will have the opportunity to vote yay or nay on this woman jurist in 2010.
The problem is the two choices she has to pick from are justices who don’t align with her conservative views.
Alaska’s judges are selected using the Missouri Plan, which combines election and appointment in choosing the judge. The Alaska Judicial Council selects the nominees from which the governor can then make an appointment. As one conservative Web site explained, “she’s boxed in tighter than Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.”
A total of six judges applied, but only two were elected by the Judicial Council, Eric Smith, considered very liberal, and Morgan Christen, who is viewed as more of a moderate. Christen and Smith were rated with scores of 4.3 and 4.5 out of a 5 point scale used to elect judges by the council.
The four other nominees scored between 3.7 and 2.4 and were not sent to Palin for consideration.
Here bio here doesn’t list Planned Parenthood.
This bio lists her as on the board of United Way.
I wonder if it is one of those cases where the group is pulling up the connection between the United Way and Planned Parenthood and assuming she is pro-choice because of that.
Reading about the other choice, Smith, he is a radical hippie who makes the 9th Circuit look Conservative.. Looks like Palin made the best choice with what was presented her.
Actually I am a strong Sarah Palin supporter and those who read FR frequently can attest to that. But by the same token it does not make me a ‘blind stupid Obamatron’.
The reason I bring this up is that I am thinking ahead. Will this decision impact her support and simply will pro-life adherents (especially Team Sarah) consider withdrawing support from her if she decides to run for the Presidency in 2012?
Life is more important than ANYTHING. The environment doesn’t matter if your never born.
There may be more to the story though, is the lady in question really ProChoice?
No it won’t because there will be many of us who will remind folks who bring up the issue what the options where in front of her.. Compared to Smith, Christen is a saint.
It might actually help Palin with Independent women in 2012 if she decides to run.
she was forced to choose between two candidates, picking the one that could do the least harm to her state
a mother seeking to abort her child can always cross state lines, so picking the envirowhacko would not prevent that from occurring.
picking the pro-choice justice prevents the envirowhacko from hurting Alaska
But would Sarah risk alientating the pro-life community by giving this decision too much attention? Wouldn’t she be walking a fine line?
I’m still looking around (see other posts) but that is a key question.. The very liberal “People for the American Way” is complaining that Christen is too ‘right’ and isn’t sure she supports fully a woman’s choice(sic)..
I found this article on Zimbo that said “She (Christen) is Christian and pro-life, but also a supporter of birth control..”
It may be they are using the Catholic standard that even birth control, like the pill, is not a pro-life stance
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.