Second look at Palin’s Planned Parenthood pick
AK Gov. Sarah Palin’s Supreme Court pick of former Planned Parenthood member Morgan Christen (right) was complicated.
According to several news reports but synopsized on conservatives4palin.
com:
Gov. Palin’s power to appoint judges is very limited in this process….
[S]he can only choose names from a short list supplied to her by the Judicial Council. And in this instance, they sent her 2 names that she would never choose on her own, but she had no recourse to demand more names. No, this Alaskan system is not ideal.
We’re told 6 candidates applied and the AK Judicial Council (stacked 4 lawyers against 3 Palin picks) forwarded only those 2 for Palin to pick between. According to conservatives4palin.com…
From Palin’s point of view, there were drawbacks to both candidates. Christen once served on the board of Planned Parenthood (at a time when the organization did not perform abortions in AK) while the other candidate, Eric Smith, was executive director of an environmentalist group. In a state like AK, which depends on resource development, having an environmental activist on the bench would be a nightmare.
There was nothing Palin could do to force the Judicial Council to give her more candidates; apparently [Palin’s predecessor Frank] Murkowski once tried rejecting all of their candidates – but was humiliated when they refused to give him any other options and he had to select one of the original names they gave him.
The fact that she selected Christen over Smith, despite being lobbied by conservative Christians to battle the AJC, is significant – especially with the parental consent bill pending before the Legislature. I think it sends a pretty clear signal that she is placing the economic well-being of Alaskans over her personal beliefs – but this is nothing new….
And, truth be told, Smith probably would have been no better on the abortion issue than Christen. A fight with the AJC would have been distracting and likely accomplished nothing.
AK’s Family Council recommended Smith, according to LifeNews.com, because its “best guess” was he was pro-life. The blogs go back and forth on that point. Here was Palin’s take, from her facebook page (which also contains the Catholic Anchor Online article it references):
(“Cradle to grave”? The Governor needs an assistant with a tad more pro-life savvy.)
The anticipated AK Supreme Court decision on a parental consent bill just introduced in the legislature will remain 3-2 opposed as it was in 2007, unless legislators adequately address Supreme concerns and the Supremes respond fairly.
I couldn’t vote as Palin did, but she was bound by the AK Constitution, and her opt out had been tried and failed before. So her only choices to fight the nominees given her were to invoke a constitutional crisis or quit. Not good.
Other good reads on this:
Conservatives4Palin.com
HotAir
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
:) who decides the grave!?
Look like you guys are going to need a new candidate:First a slap in the face of abstinence-only. Then this appointment. And now she is redefining pro-life to be more inclusive (cradle to the grave). Or is she?????
Hmmm, I’d almost give her a second look myself now if only she wasn’t so anti-environment!
This issue highlights the reality of our political system. We’ve all known from the start that she has never been a prolife activist, and this simply further emphasizes her decision to work within the political system that is in place now.
Even with all that, she’s still our best hope, and way, way better than someone like NoBama.
The AK Judicial Council picks the nominees? This is nonsense. The governor should be able to pick who she wants. It figures they would stack the list with pro-aborts.
Jill,
Thanks for bringing up the background of this pick. Governor Palin really doesn’t have authority in this appointment. What they need to do is amend their constitution. Looking at the other guy he is likely just as pro-abortion as Christen, and the Alaska Family Council’s recommendation was just what you said “their best guess.” Since she had all of the material the Alaska Judicial Council had on both I would suspect she knew more about each Judge than Tom Minnnery did.
She’s pro-life, and had she had somebody who was pro-life to choose from I’m confident that she would have.
Jasper, the idea is to take politics out of the judicial appointments. It would operate the same way if a pro choice governor was in office. It may or may not be the best way to do it (Personally, I think it’s better than a general election) but it’s really not “nonsense.”
asitis, she was never for abstinence-only, and this article makes it clear that she had limited options when it came to who to appoint.
“Jasper, the idea is to take politics out of the judicial appointments.”
‘Taking politics out of it’ means liberals get their way.
A conservative pro-life governor was elected, she should be able to appoint a judge who won’t create laws from the bench.
aren’t there environmental groups who think that big families are killing the environment? Who is to say this Eric guy wouldn’t have been just as bad?
I would like to know who else applied and why they were rejected before Sarah could see their names. Seems strange to me.
A conservative pro-life governor was elected, she should be able to appoint a judge who won’t create laws from the bench.
Posted by: Jasper at March 9, 2009 9:36 AM
Why? That’s not the system the state uses. In my state, the voters elect Judges. In other states, the governor appoints them. In Alaska, a non-Partisan commission selects a panel and the Governor picks one from the list. That’ not the law. You want a different law? Move to Alaska and vote for one.
Alaska probably has the strongest Republican party of any state in the nation. The party controls the legislative and executive branch. It’s a very conservative state in many ways. They’re pretty satisfied with the current judicial selection process, and–in fact–it’s a model other states are considering.
correction marauder, she was abstinence-only. We’ve already been through this here before. I believe it was Jasper who made the same claim as you, though not as politely :). Do you need to see this again? I can get it for you when I get home to my computer if you wish.
“In Alaska, a non-Partisan commission selects a panel”
Yea, ok Hal. Non-Partisan….they couldn’t find one originalist judge?
Having these panels are a very bad idea.
Christian are duped so easy.
She could have said no to both candidates and left it at that.
Palin would be a disaster to the pro-life cause just like Bush was;
http://www.americanrighttolife.org/news/prolife-profile-george-w-bush
Yea, ok Hal. Non-Partisan….they couldn’t find one originalist judge?
Posted by: Jasper at March 9, 2009 10:10 AM
Like your “originalist” justices on the SCOTUS? The ones that invented out of thin air a law that said Exxon didn’t have to pay what the jury awarded?
Asitis: “Look like you guys are going to need a new candidate:First a slap in the face of abstinence-only. Then this appointment. And now she is redefining pro-life to be more inclusive (cradle to the grave). Or is she?????
Hmmm, I’d almost give her a second look myself now if only she wasn’t so anti-environment!”
Again you post your thoughts and throw wide the doors into your ignorance.
Clearly the article points to her stance as pro-life. The publicists mistakenly used an idiom “from the cradle to the grave” to mean from the start of life to the end of life. (Apparently you havent heard this particular idiom Asitis.) If anything the confusion is EXTREME pro-life. The quote implies that newly conceived humans are on the equivilant with newborns.
oh really? The publicist made a mistake? Oh my! That never even occurred to me!
You’re funny Oliver. Always searching.
Are trying to play it off as sarcastic? You again mispoke and cant defend yourself. Its amazing to watch you squirm.
“The head of the Alaska Family Council — a Christian pro-family, anti-abortion group — on Wednesday sent an e-mail to thousands of people asking them to urge Palin to pick Smith, not Christen.”
Seems like Palin cares more about destroying the environment then protecting the unborn.
are you kidding me Oliver? It’s even noted in the post jill wrote!
Thanks for the laugh!
Everytime the alleged “pro-life” incrementalists have one of their own appoint an outright PRO-ABORT judge to a Supreme Court they always use the same pathetic excuse – THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO CHOOSE THE PRO-ABORT JUDGE!
Actually, you fatalistic and weak incrementalists, Palin DID HAVE A CHOICE in who to pick for that position on the Supreme Court.
If she was so unhappy with the narrowing of two candidates for nomination she could have drug it out and demanded that she be given more fitting nominees to choose from.
But, she didn’t do that. She folded like a weak little girl playing her first game of poker. And now she is set things up to lose big on life in the state of Alaska because of it.
Ezek, can’t you read? The council that send up nominees does not budge. They do not rethink. They do not send up a second slate. Nothing in the state law says they have to so they don’t.
Parental consent laws ore not “pro-life incrementalism.” It is treating abortion just like any other medical procedure. My 12 year old daughter can’t get a tooth pulled without my consent. She can’t take her inhaler to school without another whole stack of forms.
But in most state it legal for anyone to take any child to get an abortion, even across state lines without the parents knowledge or consent.
If any adult took a child shopping across state lines without parents permission it is federal kidnapping. But not for an abortion.
Life threatening emergencies are already covered under the law. If my son has a life threatening emergency, doctors do not have to wait for me to save his life.
As Dr. Tiller shows us, “life threatening” exceptions in abortion specific laws are often ignored or stretched so far as to be meaningless.
You’re a damn fool Mark. A damn fool.
A total and complete fool at that!
The “person most qualified” is never a child-killer.
“Christen once served on the board of Planned Parenthood (at a time when the organization did not perform abortions in AK)” ummm….abortifacients are abortions. Unbelievable none the less, I think they would try to defend her selection of a Nazi by claiming, “at a time when they were not killing Jews in Alaska.”
Wake up pro-lifers.
I hate the pro-life industry –
it helps make “pro-lifers” stupid.
Jill, this demonstrates a major downside of democracy. People share their loyalty to God with political candidates, so that they defend their guy no matter how immoral his action. Palin could have just said no. A godly governing official would refuse to nominate to a position of power someone who hates Jews and wants to kill them. It doesn’t matter what the process is. Likewise, the governor of Alaska should refuse to nominate a child killer former Planned Parenthood board member to their state Supreme Court. She should just say no. You think a pro-abort would comply with some mere process and appoint a pro-lifer on the Supreme Court? Of course not. They have principles. Evil principles, true, but they do have principles. Alaska’s former Gov. Frank Murkowski rejected all the nominees sent to him; true, he eventually caved; but then, he wasn’t a pro-abort being told to nominate a pro-lifer. When the world sees principle in action, it’s almost always from the bad guys. Certainly don’t expect such from our anti-personhood, child-killing is states’ rights, abortion regulators. So our guy can be really evil, and our partisan political spirit kicks in, and we defend him. Too bad we don’t love our own candidates enough to warn them of their dire wickedness.
Child killing has crept right in to reshape and rename the American Pro Life movement. It is my prediction that Jill Stanek will, at some point, be blinded by the lights, attention, and money. Babies arms and legs are ripped off by blood thirsty murderers labeled “abortionist”, every day.
The Pro Life Industry is a disgrace, and is entrenched in the child killing industry. James Bopp is the cheerleader, lieing politicians are the headliners, and the masses are dupped into sending money to support this wretched game of murder for hire.
Support your local PERSONHOOD movement, or start one.