Isn't it? And those who do it are transparent as can be.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Hey Barack HUSSEIN Obama, I went to Harvard too! That was the worst fieldtrip of my life, but I went there...
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.
Hey, I’ll take all the “heat” anyone can dish out in the defense of Life and Liberty.
Way to go EV. I knew you would pull Mitt into this sooner or later. Thanks for not disappointing me.
So...what are the odds of you actually reading the rest of the thread after finishing the article?
You might be surprised at what you find out.
Do you really think that's what the end goal is?
The inalienable rights within the Constitution cannot be infringed by either the states or the federal government.
Our problem is that a majority of the people today do not see abortion as an issue regarding the inalienable right to life of the unborn person. Until they do, we're not getting anywhere. Sending the issue back to the states opens everything up for debate, and we can start from there. It would have the positive side effect of, oh, saving more babies in less time.
Nothing will stop people from pushing even further after that, you know. If it comes to be commonly accepted that the unborn are persons from conception, then we're done. Mission accomplished. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments take over from there.
And I will serve you this warning, too. I will predict that if Sarah Palin runs, it will be the Christians that hand her defeat, more than any other faction.
Probably one of the bigger whoppers I've seen on this thread today. *chuckles*
Huh, I don’t remember mentioning him. Does me defending the defense of Life and Liberty make you think of Romney? Sounds like you have a guilty conscience.
Actually go back and reread your post you did mention that National Right to Life and been bought by Mitt.
Post 217:
“You mean the utterly compromised, wholly-owned, subsidiary of the RNC and Mitt Romney?”
Gotcha:).
Ah, I stand corrected.
>> So...what are the odds of you actually reading the rest of the thread after finishing the article?
>> You might be surprised at what you find out.
LOL, that’s good advice for any thread.
Perhaps you should research a bit more before jumping to conclusions.
by mnehrling on another thread:
“Not a completely accurate story, she chose the most conservative of the two choices she had, the other option, Smith, was far to the left of Christen. It is also not really determined if Christen was pro-choice. Lots of research on this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2199866/posts
It doesn't matter what the end goal is. "The end justifies the means" is a very liberal idea. It is not the states' to claim, and that is the end of it. Now, if the states would care to DEFY the supreme court on Constitutional grounds, that's a different story- But that is not what they are doing.
The inalienable rights within the Constitution cannot be infringed by either the states or the federal government.
But yet, they are.
Sending the issue back to the states opens everything up for debate, and we can start from there. It would have the positive side effect of, oh, saving more babies in less time.
You are advocating a return to the status quo, representing nothing but failure. Your method has been well tried, and has saved no babies in thirty years. *None*.
Probably one of the bigger whoppers I've seen on this thread today. *chuckles*
Watch and see.
The reason for Reagan Conservatism, and the POINT of it is to offer candidates who fulfill the requirements of all three pillars of Conservatism. The reason it is powerful is because it prevents rivals, and therefore, division.
Weakness on an issue of such great importance to a faction, as the Pro-Life issue most certainly is to the Christians, is bound to raise rivals, and raise them with good cause. And those rivals will create division.
Split the Christians, and the game is over.
Of course it's not. Problem is is that a majority of people don't see it that way.
Which method results in a quicker opening up of debate on this matter, is what I'm thinking: overturning Roe v. Wade and opening up the debate on a local level, or going straight for a Constitutional amendment?
But yet, they are.
*has been making that very point for the last several replies...*
You are advocating a return to the status quo, representing nothing but failure.
The status quo in what sense? The return to abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade?
If that's what you're saying, I'd GLADLY go for that as a good first step.
Your method has been well tried, and has saved no babies in thirty years. *None*.
And what method are you suggesting?
I appreciate the honesty. And while I am not sure I share your all or nothing view of this issue, as someone who is strongly Pro-life I respect your stand on the issue. You may not agree, but I think if we are going to ever stop abortion in this country we need both the hardliners like you who push the envelope and the more pragmatic people like me who will work to end it incrementally if that is what it takes. I do not disparage the principled stand that you are taking and find it refreshing that you do not waver on that principle regardless of whose commitment is being challenged.
Thanks for the gracious post.
For the record, I’ll show you how hard-line I really am:
http://www.aipnews.com/Affiliate.asp
I’ve come to believe that this country cannot be saved until and unless Christians quit flirting with the other side and draw a line they won’t cross; both in terms of policy and personnel.
There in lies the problem with your argument. I don't doubt for a moment that Sarah Palin is pro life, and that as a governor and not a poster on a forum, that she is sometimes stuck with making decisions she doesn't like. It is the hypocrisy of her supporters that I find disturbing. No one else's candidate can have even a hint of blemish on their conservative record, State Supreme Courts and legislatures be damned, but when it is your candidate we should look at all the extenuating circumstances. It is this type of slavish clinging to ideological purity that got us Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Bambster.
On the end game we will always agree, on how best to get there we will have to continue to agree to disagree. You are doing God’s work, keep it up.
thanks for posting a reasonable assessment of why and how Governor Palin her choice
from what I learned of Governor Palin I trust her judgement even if it would not appear I like the choice she made.
I disagree. I would happily risk a national referendum on the matter.
Which method results in a quicker opening up of debate on this matter, is what I'm thinking: overturning Roe v. Wade and opening up the debate on a local level, or going straight for a Constitutional amendment?
Neither, actually. We are a nation of laws, not men. Debate is of little use. The law has been written since our very defining moment. Enforce the law.
The status quo in what sense? The return to abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade?
No. I am referring to the "status quo" of overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing Life to return to the states. That was the objective of he Pro-Life movement for nearly 30 years, and was an utter failure. The reason for that failure is the nature of the argument.
And what method are you suggesting?
I am not a strict advocate of a Constitutional amendment per se. What I do require is a real and concerted effort to return the matter of Life where it belongs~ That being it's honored place above the courts of men, which is what, in fact, the Constitution guarantees and declares. It is a document of limitations, and is worthless unless those limitations are rigidly enforced.
The proper defense of Life can come from many directions- An Act in Congress would be sufficient (such an act was offered by Duncan Hunter every year)... Impeaching judges (including supreme court justices) who would legislate from the bench... The return of the proper appointment of senators by the states so that the states themselves can better express their will upon the federal government...
All roads lead to the necessity of electing proper statesmen; men dedicated to the restoration of, very proper use of, and enforcement of, the U.S Constitution and it's resulting laws.
Isn't it? And those who do it are transparent as can be.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Hey Barack HUSSEIN Obama, I went to Harvard too! That was the worst fieldtrip of my life, but I went there...
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.