Posted on 03/06/2009 9:15:49 AM PST by EternalVigilance
In a move that should give social conservatives great pause, Governor Sarah Palin has appointed a former board member of Planned Parenthood to the Alaska State Supreme Court.
Palin appointed Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen to the state’s highest court on Wednesday. Along with Christen’s former board member status with Planned Parenthood.
There is no disputing Palin’s appointment of Christen will cause the Alaska Supreme to lean left and will ensure a more activist court when it comes to gay marriage, and abortion. The Christen appointment is key because she replaces justice Warren Mathews, one of the dissenting votes striking down the parental consent legislation.
The Governor, who early on won the support of Alaska liberals after she pushed through an enormous, unprecedented tax increase on the oil industry, seems to be back in their good graces with this appointment.
ADN liberal bloggers responded to Palin’s Supreme Court appointment writing,
“Ohmigawd!??The governor's been taken over by space aliens.??What an improvement!”
“Wow. Way to go Palin! I can't believe I just said that. But hey, credit where credit is due.”
“Glad to see a woman in the position to balance out the court. Good for Palin for keeping bible thumper beliefs out of the court system and honoring the separation of Church and State.”
“This is the one good action that Sarah Palin has taken over the past three years. And I have no problem admitting it. Great pick!!!! So even if the wing-nut parental consent bill passes, the state Supremes now have enough votes to overturn it as unconstitutional.”
Granted Palin would have had to put up a fight to block the appointment of the far left Christen to the court. Under Alaska law the judicial council made up mostly of liberal lawyers gets to filter out candidates who do not hold a leftist background. The governor must pick from the names forwarded.
But former governor Frank Murkowski during his term fought the process and at first refused to name any of the names submitted to him. The liberal media beat him up pretty bad over it and he eventually caved.
If Governor Palin would have taken on this fight, it probably would have ended up in court. If she had taken up the fight and asked for all the candidates’ names that applied to be forwarded, it would have brought to the public’s attention that trial lawyers control the third branch of government in Alaska. But with the governor refusing to spend any political capital on this issue, it is sure to disappear from Alaska’s political landscape.
The governor caving into trial lawyers also guarantees an activist court will continue to push its agenda on the people of Alaska. It will continue to stand between you and your child, continue to redefine marriage and block development.
Palin appointing Christen kills any move by the legislature to pass parental consent legislation. The new court with Christen on it will surely strike down any new laws. This is one of the reason Palin’s caving is confusing. Just recently held a news conference standing side by side with conservative lawmakers sponsoring new parental consent legislation.
Refusing to fight for parental consent laws is risky for Palin. It clearly will help her avoid controversy from the liberal media. But conservatives supporting her won't like the fact she appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to Alaska’s highest court.
Many of the governor’s conservative supporters have ignored her high taxes and liberal anti free market policies. They support her simply because she says she is pro-life and is open about her faith. But the Christen appointment proves that while the governor lives the pro-life message in her personal life, she is not willing to spend political capital on the issue in her political life.
what happens to her if she refuses the choices offered to her?
Yeah,,its all an elaborate scam. Sarah was an abortionist all along! Thank God you guys figured her out for us!
Trying to cast Sarah in the “pro-choice” one puts solidly into the gadfly zone.
The Alaska legal council sends the choices back to her giving her the same choice: the horns of a dilemma.
Under the Missouri system she cannot refuse to choose.
I agree with you.. Sarah is my choice in 2012 and still is. It looks she had choice and I think she made the right decision by not appointing that environmental judge.
There is 1000 times more chance that Obama is a Manchurian candidate than Sarah Palin is one in the pro-life community.
Go ahead, be a man, call me bitch. I've been called worse by bigger tools than you.
“She isn’t pro-life anyway. Like Ron Paul and John McCain, she’s “pro-choice for states.”
She walks it, instead of just talking it. I’ve heard a saying “Life is choices” (interesting considering the topic) and when life confronted her and her family TWICE with choices...she chose LIFE.
IMO can’t be any more pro-life than that.
Exactly. She wasn’t given a Conservative choice.
I don't consider anyone to be pro-life who thinks that states have a right to allow the killing of innocent persons.
EV, you need to read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2199650/posts?page=3#3
Not killing your child is not a pro-life credential.
>> this type of treatment is not reserved for only Palin detractors/supporters
Disciplinarians are not interested in dialog.
"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.)"
Lesser of two evils; Sarah had no choice.
No. Her predecessor Murkowski tried that once and got embarrassed publicly when the board refused. And that was for a lesser court.
So we have two options here:
1) Go for a Constitutional amendment first to ban abortion.
2) Repeal Roe v. Wade and allow the matter to be settled on a state level. Result: various pro-life states, some pro-choice states. Due to interstate conflicts, constitutional amendment regarding the matter can get more attention.
They aren’t mutually exclusive positions EV. You KNOW this. I’ve read too many of your posts to not conclude that you’re an intelligent guy.
So why do you immediately leap to “HARF HARF SARAH IS PRO-ABORTION HARF” without...you know, supporting evidence?
There is no such thing as having no choice. There is always a choice. The only question is whether you’re willing to fight or not when the going gets tough and be willing to pay the cost for doing the right thing, though it may be high.
that’s all that happens? they get embarrassed?
big deal.
You kind of confused me on your last sentence. But I think it’s silly to think that Sarah is running some kind of scam, where she pretends to be pro life, but is really pro choice.
It really puts someone into the nut zone so small they can almost be ignored. It’s about the size of the crowd who votes against Feinstein because they think she secretly champions gun ownership.
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.