Wednesday, March 4, 2009

UPDATED: Governor Palin Fills Supreme Court Vacancy




The ADN reports:

Gov. Palin just appointed Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen to the vacancy on the Alaska Supreme Court.

The opening was created by the pending retirement of longtime Justice Warren Matthews.

Palin chose Christen over Palmer Superior Court judge Eric Smith, the other candidate whose name was submitted to the governor by the Alaska Judicial Council.

Christen, 47, is currently the presiding judge for the Third Judicial District, an area that encompasses all of Southcentral Alaska -- including Anchorage, Kenai, Mat-Su, Cordova, Valdez and Kodiak -- as well as Bristol Bay and the Aleutian Islands. As such she oversees the work of 23 other Superior Court judges.

I found this particularly interesting:

Under Alaska's Constitution, she goes straight to the Supreme Court; there's no legislative confirmation. Christen will be subject to approval or rejection by voters in the next general election (November 2010); after initial approval, justices face a retention vote every ten years.

Previous C4P coverage of Governor Palin's judicial appointments and the appointment process in Alaska can be found here.

UPDATE by Ramrocks: Gov. Palin's power to appoint judges is very limited in this process. Sure, she doesn't have to get her appointees approved by the legislature; but she can only choose names from a short list supplied to her by the Judicial Council. And in this instance, they sent her two 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.

Here's Governor Palin's press release:

March 4, 2009, Juneau, Alaska – Governor Sarah Palin selected Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen to the Alaska Supreme Court. Christen is the 20th justice appointed to the Court.

“Alaska’s Supreme Court bears the awesome responsibility of ensuring that our court system administers justice in firm accordance with the principles laid down in our state Constitution,” said Governor Palin. “I have every confidence that Judge Christen has the experience, intellect, wisdom and character to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice.”

Christen, 47, was born in Chehalis, Washington. After attending colleges in England, Switzerland, and the People’s Republic of China, she received a bachelor’s degree in international studies from the University of Washington in 1983, and a law degree from Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, California, in 1986.

Christen worked as a law clerk to Anchorage Superior Court Justice Brian Shortell from 1986-87, then joined Preston, Gates & Ellis in 1987, becoming a partner in 1992. She was appointed as an Anchorage Superior Court justice in 2002, and has been presiding judge since 2005.

Christen currently serves on the boards of the Alaska Community Foundation and the Rasmuson Foundation, and previously served on the boards of the United Way of Anchorage, and of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. A past president of Anchorage Association of Women Lawyers, she has also won the Anchorage Chamber’s Light of Hope award for helping Alaska children in 2004, and won the Anchorage Chamber’s Athena Society Award in 2006. She has been a member of the Downtown Anchorage Rotary Club since 1992.

[...]

Under current judicial selection procedures, the Alaska Judicial Council received applications from six Alaska attorneys, winnowed the list to two names, and forwarded them to the governor.

UPDATE by VO: The ADN has more details this morning. Apparently Governor Palin requested full dossiers on the two candidates, an unusual step. 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 Alaska) while the other candidate, Eric Smith, was executive director of an environmentalist group. In a state like Alaska, 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 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. Her philosophy of strict constructionism is once again demonstrated in her press release about the appointment:

“Alaska’s Supreme Court bears the awesome responsibility of ensuring that our court system administers justice in firm accordance with the principles laid down in our state Constitution,” said Governor Palin.

There are people on the Right who will not like this - as a matter of fact, it sounds like some social conservatives in Alaska are already unhappy. But, as she has always stated when asked, she feels that the question of abortion should be resolved by the will of the people. 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.

In an ideal world, the fact that she appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to the high court would stop the criticism of the left-wing feminists who claim she wants to take away the right of women to choose. But I somehow doubt they will give her any credit. These were tough waters for Governor Palin to navigate, but it seems to me she chose the best available option for the economic health of Alaska.

UPDATE II BY VO: Some commenters have asked what this appointment does to the balance of power in the court vis-a-vis the parental consent issue. This article provides some background on the vote last time around...bottom line is that the balance probably remains 3-2 against. One of the justices who opposed parental consent, Alex Bryner, was replaced last year by Palin appointee Daniel Winfree, who the ADN describes as "conservative". However, Christen is replacing Warren Matthews, who supported parental consent the last time. So this is probably a wash.

The unknown factor is if the Court, in a putative challenge, would go with parental notification in lieu of consent if that is presented as an option. It may not even come to that - Hollis French still has the parental consent bill, as well as a proposed ban on partial birth abortion, bottled up in his committee.


UPDATE II by Ramrocks: I can tell already that this issue will be used by Gov. Palin's critics in the Lower 48 to malign her social conservative credentials. They will imply that she chose Christen, a former PP board member, in the same manner as the President of the United States chooses judicial appointments. This is totally false, and we should be vigilant in pointing this out.

As was noted in a law.com
article from last September:

Judicial nominations in Alaska follow the Missouri Plan, a hybrid of elections and appointments. A group of three lawyers, three nonlawyers and the chief justice of the state Supreme Court vets, interviews and votes on candidates for judgeships. For each vacancy, the group -- called the Alaska Judicial Council -- submits at least two nominees to the governor, who makes the final decision on whom to appoint.

There can be no doubt that Gov. Palin would not have chosen Christen if she were given the freedom to choose an appointee in the same manner that the POTUS does.

UPDATE III by Ramrocks: Welcome, Hot Air readers.

For the latest info on the judicial appointment (including an explanation of the Missouri Plan, the backstory on Murkowski's battle with the AJC, the applications submitted by Christen and Smith, and the current make-up of the AJC), please see
our current post here.

UPDATE IV by Ramrocks: Please see here for Gov. Palin's Facebook statement about the judicial appointment and her pro-life beliefs.

52 comments:

promachus,  March 4, 2009 11:19 PM  

Is this one of the judges that the Democrats in the senate nominated or does Sarah get to pick the judge all by herself?

It really goes to show how powerful her governorship is, doesn't it and the lower 48 had no idea.

Videmus Omnia March 4, 2009 11:22 PM  

Promachus, our earlier post that JR links has some background on the candidate selection process.

promachus,  March 4, 2009 11:24 PM  

VO thanks. Somebody else also asked this, do we know the philosphy of this judge?

ReaganPalinGal,  March 4, 2009 11:25 PM  

Looks like Sarah picked the more moderate of the two candidates.

Sinistar March 4, 2009 11:36 PM  

With regards to the powers of a Governor of Alaska in the executive branch:

In the governor, Alaska has an unusually strong chief executive. Under the constitution, the only officials elected statewide are the governor and the lieutenant governor, who run as a team in the general election. This gives the governor almost complete control of the executive branch. To illustrate, some states separately elect the attorney general and the secretary of state. In Alaska, the attorney general is an appointee of the governor, and the lieutenant governor fulfills the duties of secretary of state, principally overseeing elections.
http://www.ktoo.org/gavel/guide/classGuide1-1.htm

I also recall reading some report out of Duke University or UNC-Chapel Hill listing where all the governorships of all 50 states rated on how much power they wielded within their state and Alaska was pretty high up there.

Interesting point about the legislature not having to approve the judicial appointments. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Governor is limited to the 2+ picks that are handed to them from the judicial council.

JR March 4, 2009 11:39 PM  

I read that Mass. was the most powerful with AK and NJ not far behind

Sinistar March 5, 2009 12:36 AM  

An article about Alaska's Constitution from the December 1958 Edition of the American Bar Association Journal:

Perhaps none of the states possesses a stronger executive branch than the Alaska state constitution provides. There are no other independently elected officers, and the Governor of Alaska will be held wholly responsible for the conduct of state administration during his four-year term.

Unhappy territorial experiences, resulting from the fact that the smallest details of government were administered by absentee bureaucrats in Washington, undoubtedly influenced this Hamiltonian swing of the pendulum. A strong executive may be the trend in modern state government, as evidenced by the 1947 New Jersey constitution, which creates an executive department very similar to Alaska's.

http://www.alaska.edu/creatingalaska/StatehoodFiles/articles/hellenthalarticle.xml

Anonymous,  March 5, 2009 4:11 AM  

Very disappointing indeed. This judge is a member of Planned Parenthood, an abortion activist, and has already indicated she will not support parental consent legislation.

I agree Smith is even worse, an activist judge who believes the constitution is "a living document".

Sarah should have demanded more names from the Council. She really "chickened out" on this one.

Hopefully, the people of Alaska will organize and have the guts to do what Sarah didn't do and toss this judge out in 2010.

The least Sarah could have done would have been to put out a brief prefunctory press release of just a couple of sentences, indicating that she was the more qualified of the two candidates she had to chose from and leave it at that. Instead she puts out this laudatory
press release praising this abortion activist!

You can bet this issue will be raised in the primaries if she runs. A while back you referenced a blog that questioned whether Palin was pro life and you dismissed it as a nut case. However, this appointment gives that blogger considerable support.

Oh, and by the way has Sarah ever appeared at a March for Life, like Michelle Bachman has? Sarah didn't even have the courtesy to send a greetings video to the Team Sarah memebers who marched in the Washington event last month. Compare that to Rep. Bachman, and other pro life congress women who held a reception for all the Team Sarah members on the Hill.

Sinistar March 5, 2009 6:06 AM  

Anonymous at 4:11am said:
Very disappointing indeed. This judge is a member of Planned Parenthood, an abortion activist, and has already indicated she will not support parental consent legislation.

I agree Smith is even worse, an activist judge who believes the constitution is "a living document".


I've only seen the info on ADN
(http://www.adn.com/news/government/story/711378.html) and so haven't heard the whole story so to speak. Additionally, what Governor Palin found in the mountain of additional information she requested on the two candidates is anyone's guess.

It is definitely sad that the governor had to pick between two judges that she probably didn't care for, but I'm not sure that not picking was an option.

I mean, you say in your post that one of the two nominations believed that the constitution was a "living document", but what angle would Governor Palin play if she told the Alaska Judicial Council, "I don't like either candidate... come back when you have better nominations"?

The Alaska Constitution says very clearly and specific the way that judges are picked, and playing some angle to get around it, to me seems a bit like treating the Alaska Constitution as if it was a "living document".

Former Governor Murkowski tried to argue once that the Alaska Judicial Council was required to nominate the "most qualified" and so he wasn't going to pick from the group that they had nominated. But for all Murkowski's objections it didn't change anything and he ended up having to pick someone from that group.

Having said that, if there was a way she could have rejected both nominee and pick someone more in line with her views it would have been nice, and I suspect that she would have... but like I was saying, I'm not sure that things would have ended any different.

As far as it hurting her politically for a future gubernatorial run, I highly doubt that her decision would amount to much. One could easily make an argument that she would lose votes if she decided to not pick either of them (even if in the end she was forced to pick one of them).

Tom March 5, 2009 6:17 AM  

In looking at the six candidates that applied, two where conservatives, but had no judicial experience.

They received the lowest scores of the six candidates.

Palin picked the lesser of two evils and had no choice.

anon 4:11

Bringing the argument on picking a pro-choice judge is not valid in our process here. After looking at the list of candidates that the council put out, the deck was clearly stacked against her.

Sinistar is correct....

Anonymous,  March 5, 2009 6:58 AM  

I think Sinistar is correct.

I trust on the political instinct and wisdom of Gov.Palin.

Greg March 5, 2009 7:33 AM  

Gov. Palin has another hard decision coming up, she has to appoint someone to fill Elton's seat. He's the Troopergate guy who is going to work for the 0bama administation. She has to pick a democrat. No easy choices.

As for the choice for the Supreme Court, she made the only choice she could. I've seen a picture of the other choice, Smith, he looks like someone you'd see standing on a street corner asking for spare change, beard, long hair the works.

JD,  March 5, 2009 9:12 AM  

@ Anonymous 4:11 am: nice to see we have some Romney trolls visiting this site! Fact is, the nominating process being what it is, there's nothing Palin could do about having to choose between these two bad candidates. That's sometimes what government is: two dead ends and you still got to choose.

On a wider point: conservatives always whine about the process being 'unfair'. It's not unfair, it's just dominated by liberals. If we don't like that, it's up to us to get stuck in and take it back from them.

davek70 March 5, 2009 9:24 AM  

Man, I did not realize this was such a tough decision until reading all the analysis here. Thanks all for laying it all out for us clearly.

AK laws are brutal in some cases. Unfortunately, I have to somewhat agree (just a little) w/ the above poster that this issue may come up in the primaries down the road. Obviously, Gov Palin has many valid reasons to make her argument she had no choice in this appt due to AK state law. However, that won't stop any far right candidates (like a Huckster) or other groups from making an issue of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, the Romney argument is just silly, he is clearly more pro-choice than many of the potential '12 candidates.

narciso March 5, 2009 9:25 AM  

Well I don't think it will make any difference, Reagan signed a very prochoice bill, back during
his first term of governor, Sarah
made her choice with Trig, and that was a source of a great deal of the animosity and a fair amount
of the support for her. The whole
thing gives the lie to the extreme
Christian viewpoint conveyed by Benet, repeated by Salon and Huff Po; and still preserved in their Google and Youtube caches. Colin thought I was exaggerating on that point, I wasn't it was only on say
Eye of Polyphemus, which had the Starship "Sarah" site, or Carlos Echevarria's that you get positive Youtube videos. This is partly how I ended up here.

hrh March 5, 2009 10:12 AM  

But you all do realize this may increase her support among the critical Independents?

Glenn Beck used a white board yesterday to draw 15% of far left Dems on one side and 15% of far right Repubs on the other with the vast 70% of the rest of us in the middle.

Palin did the best she could while upholding the constitutional process of selecting supreme court justices in Alaska.

So IMO, she may have lost some of the 15% of the far right but may also have picked up some in the 70% and perhaps even some of the 15% far left!

Re: Michelle Bachman may never run for Prez, that's a whole different ball game. Palin lives her prolife commitment, she only has to carry Trig into a room to prove that.

FWIW, I'm prolife, too, but have never marched or picketed. My style is to be FOR something not AGAINST something. So I support the prolife cause by monthly automatic contributions to our local CareNet center.

Help women with crisis pregnancies and they're less likely to abort. Confront them as baby killers and we just shame them, but don't inform them that they can get support.

/end soapbox

Anonymous,  March 5, 2009 10:18 AM  

What does this appointment do to the parental consent legislation? Is it now a 3-3 split assuming this justice votes against it? However, she could split the baby and go for parental notice. If the other guy was an abortion activist as well, she probably just chose the person who was less of an environmental freak...

JR, I don't think the Rombots are the ones who would hit Palin for not proving her pro-life creds...hahaha, that would be too unintentionally funny. Hard-right social cons like Huckabee and Jindal may bring it up...

If you want to look at it from a pure national perspective cynically, the move does help her if she does get to the general election against Obama because it would effectively be the biggest counterattack against the argument she would pack the court with hard-right social conservatives if she was willing to appoint a Planned Parenthood member to her state's Supreme Court (of course, I hope she would appoint hard-right social conservatives, heh heh beause they seem more likely to know how to interpret the social conservatives...just give us the wink and nod).

Greg March 5, 2009 10:37 AM  

Another tough decision to make regarding the minimum wage:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Will-Palin-walk-her-conservative-talk-back-home-in-Alaska-40771782.html#comments

Videmus Omnia March 5, 2009 10:49 AM  

Thanks, Greg - I saw that. I was just checking the status of that bill in the legislature and think I will post on it.

Anonymous,  March 5, 2009 11:08 AM  

I don't think the family council was sold on Smith anyway, so this should not be that big of a problem for her among the christian conservatives in Alaska. Fagan will probably repeat what anon at 4:11 said.

JR March 5, 2009 11:10 AM  

Fagan lmao

same guy who makes fun of special education children

he is garbage

narciso March 5, 2009 11:22 AM  

Fagan, is this guy for real, he reminds nothing so much as Andy Martin, a local radio guy and Politico, who ran forever; you can
put Crazy Andy Halcro in that same slot, and came up with some of the crazier allegations about Obama, that ultimately had to be repudiated; but weakened the general critique of Obama. It's a rigged system, but that's what she had to work with, Benet is relying
of Fagan's mistaken view of apprenticeship requirements, in his book. I'm really starting to hate him, with the same anger I reserved for Tina & Katie and Co,
and the RINO retreads, Parker, Frum, et al. I dropped a comment on that DC Examiner columnist, including most of the the things she left out of the background for
her piece

Jenny March 5, 2009 11:31 AM  

Palin proves with the birth of her special needs child, her continuos talk on life issues, and her support of parental consent, that she is adamantly pro-life.

The Alaskan constitution does not allow for Palin to pick and choose whomever she wants for the position in the court.
Jindal and Huck should not even bring this up because it is just stupid. They haven't outlawed abortions in their respective states. Plus, they will lose this argument for the reasons I stated above.
Palin also belongs to a feminist group with Patricia Heaton that supports life.

As for her appeal to those that are pro-abortion, she already has some supporting her (Tammy Bruce, PUMAS, Hillbuzz guys).

Sapwolf March 5, 2009 11:45 AM  

Both of these judge candidates are liberal. Sarah had to pick one. She picked the one she probably thought was the lesser of two evils.

Sarah STICKS to the constitution. She is a strict interpretationist. She is conservative.

There are other ways to toss out this female judge in the event she becomes too activist.

Unfortunately, Sarah was in a position and could only pick from two liberals.

If she were POTUS, she will pick interpretationists like Bork or Scalia because she believes in the Constitution, and she would be in a position to do it.

I'm not happy about a Golden Gate graduate, but that's just the way the constitution is set up.

Sarah WILL pick interpretationists for SCOTUS if she ever got the chance, and then the chance of say Roe vs. Wade getting overturned and pushed back to the states where it belongs will go up.

She is a western libertarian/constitutionist/conservative.

She is not Francisco Franco, so let's get that stated up front.

Anonymous,  March 5, 2009 1:57 PM  

It will be up to the Alaskans, if they decide she is not good for Alaska they can vote the judge out in 2012.

Greg March 5, 2009 3:15 PM  

Palin Appoints Steve W. Cole to Kodiak Superior Court

http://www.ktva.com/ci_11843749

Anonymous,  March 5, 2009 4:33 PM  

Some dude from Alaska Dispatch saying that he's a conservative Christian attorney defended the choice in an article....this guy has written other Dispatch articles saying how flawed the prosecution of Ted Stevens was and his bio kind of reminds me of Palin's bio.

Perhaps some folks are jumping the gun on Christen...I mean, it's PP's position that parenatl consent is unconstitutional, that doesn't mean she agrees with that position though it's likely she does. Who knows, maybe she's less of an enviro-nut as the other guy so 'Cuda determined it was more important that the court not serve as an impediment to economic development...I think fiscal cons and the Giuliani/McCain types would love this move by 'Cuda.

Anonymous,  March 5, 2009 4:33 PM  

I'm the annonymous who posted at 4:11. That's right JR, dismiss anyone who disagrees with Palin as a Romney supporter or a Huckabee supporter or whatever.

I have no candidate at all. I'm a conservative who is strongly PRO LIFE. If the Republican candidate is not strong on pro life issues, I will vote independent or not vote at all.

I have been attracted to Palin because of her personal life story on many levels. However, in investigating her public record, I have seen little evidence where she uses her political capital to advance pro life issues. This judicial appointment is simply the cherry on the cake!

Let me be clear, I admire the personal choices she has made. But given the choice between a politician who will advance pro life issues in government and makes poor choices personally - versus - a politician who does nothing to advance pro life issues in government but makes good personal choices - I will chose the former over the later in a heart beat. It is important to keep moving this issue forward not backward.

Its pretty clear that the bloggers on this site are conservatives who don't care much about the pro life issue. I mean the statement by rammrocks that Sarah puts "the economic interests of the state ahead of this issue" - says it all.

Now, we have people on this site arguing that she has the pro life community "locked up", so she can get independents by appointing a pro abortionist to the Supreme Court of Alaska. That's the most ridiculous political analysis I've ever heard. Thats the same type of analysis that says Republicans should be like Democrats if they want to get elected.

By the way, she did have a choice, she could have demanded more names and made it a public issue. However, this might have impacted her popularity ratings so she "chickened out".

What would she do if she was POTUS with a Democratic Senate. If the Senate kept rejecting her choices for the Supreme Court, would she buckle under and appoint a liberal justice because her popularity would go down with independents if she kept fighting. Based on this decision in Alaska, we now know what she would do - she would buckle under to the Democrats. And believe me, other pro life candidates in the primary debates will repeatedly emphasis this point

Sarah does not have a "lock" on the pro life vote. A politician similar to Palin - and in many ways superior to her - is Michelle Bachman - someone who is ready to take political risks to advance the pro life movement. Michelle is very popular and well respected in the pro life community.

Michelle Bachman is currently supporting Bobby Jindal not Palin - and that should tell you a whole lot. I believe Bachman has also come to the conclusion that Palin is really not pro life, and that is why she is supporting Jindal. If Bachman campaigns actively for Jindal in the primaries - Palin may well be toast after this.

Tom March 5, 2009 4:33 PM  

Plain is damnned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

Case in point, Justice Winfree

Anonymous,  March 5, 2009 5:48 PM  

Anon at 4:33,
You said "I believe Bachman has also come to the conclusion that Palin is really not pro life, and that is why she is supporting Jindal." This statement reveals your true agenda. You are not interested in the reality of the the situation, but only a conclusion that allows you to distort Gov Palin's positions. Obviously she understands the AJC far better than you, and she felt it was pointless to request more nominees. She had to select between two people that she would have never even considered otherwise. But don't let the facts get in the way of your tantrum. By the way, if you don't recognize the impact that Gov Palin had on the pro-life cause last fall, then you are hopeless

Anonymous,  March 5, 2009 6:00 PM  

Some people on Free Republic are Questioning whether Christen was ever associated with PP. The only source so far is the ADN.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2199866/posts

Joseph Russo March 5, 2009 6:29 PM  

Oh no!

Anon thinks that Bachmann does not support Palin because she "is not pro life"

Palin is not pro life?

I can really see you did a lot of research into it!

Nice try

move along now

Joseph Russo March 5, 2009 6:31 PM  

Hey how about that Reagan?!

He was not "pro life" either according to your standards, he signed a pro abortion law, he appointed some questionable judges

like I said above,

nice try

move along

How many kids has Jindal personally given birth to?

ZERO

thanks

Sinistar March 5, 2009 6:42 PM  

I don't recall it getting much attention at the time, but Gov. Palin gave a speech back in October that one blogger hailed as being one of the most important speeches of our time on the culture of life / special needs topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P99B6f0IFX0

Anonymous,  March 5, 2009 6:42 PM  

Rammrocks you miss the point completely in your update. She did have a choice. She could have demanded more names, she could have made it a high profile issue that could have been used as a public initiative to amend the Alaska Constitution to change the way judges are selected. She might ultimately have had to make the appointment - but she could have done it fighting all the way.

However, she didn't. Because she knew she would get beaten up by the ADN and the MSM. She put her popularity ratings ahead of reforming the system and making real political change. She showed no courage: she showed no guts; she showed she is NOT A REFORMER.

As a result, Alaska will continue to be controlled by the liberal elites through the courts.

I'm sorry - SHE DID HAVE A CHOICE - and no matter how you spin it, she failed a very basic test of conservative leadership.

Joseph Russo March 5, 2009 6:47 PM  

She didn't "do it" because she didn't want to get beaten up by the ADN?

Now we KNOW you are a troll and a bad one at that.

The ADN beats her up every single day, they beat her up if she wears the wrong color pin on her jacket.

Not a reformer you say?

ROFLMAO

Trolls are so entertaining

especially when they are not any good

So she suggests for more names and they say no and then she has to pick from the two anyway

give me a break

Joseph Russo March 5, 2009 6:49 PM  

Did you want her to pick the environmental nut job?

I'm sure that a state in a recession who depends on drilling would have really liked that

and she is the governor of Alaska, she is not there to please you

she is not there to worry about you or Bobby Jindal

or Michele Bachmann

or Team Sarah

or Mitt "Flip Flop" Romney

etc. etc. etc.

Joseph Russo March 5, 2009 6:51 PM  

So let me get this straight

she doesn't want to get beaten up by the MSM and the ADN (as if that would be something new)

but now she is getting beaten up by faux supporters who are probably getting their marching orders for Huckster or Mittens

Joseph Russo March 5, 2009 7:00 PM  

Murkowski tried the Fagan/Huckabee supporter strategy on judicial picks

they refused to send more names

he had to pick from the original set

get over it

Tbone March 6, 2009 7:11 AM  

Anonymous at 6:42P.M. on March 5,
Now Gov. Palin is afraid to get beaten up by the MSM and the ADN. What are you reading? They beat her up daily. That is not why she made that choice. Gov. Palin still has high favorables in her state even with the ADN beating her up daily. Murkowski tried the approach of asking for more judges and it failed. You know what he ended up doing? Making a choice between the original judges. She lives being PRO-LIFE.

Anonymous,  March 6, 2009 10:34 AM  

Anyway you slice it, this does not boast confidence in Palin from social conservatives.

It is a disappointment.

RichW,  March 6, 2009 1:13 PM  

From what I have read - it appears that Palin did NOT have a choice. She had to pick one of the other. BUT, I don't know if this is the case. Until it can be said definitively that she could or could not I will give her the benefit of the doubt as she does live her beliefs.

If you have some other standard that is fine I only have to live with my decisions not anyone elses.

Jaibones March 6, 2009 2:11 PM  

Anonymous, March 5, 2009 4:11 AM
________________________________

I don't blame you for posting anonymously; your opinion is ignorant and your grammar is poor.

The judge sat on the board of PP before they began performing infanticide, and doesn't sit on that board now.

You acknowledge that Palin didn't pick this liberal, certainly wouldn't have, and can't do anything about it. Then you criticize her for failing to violate the Alaska constitution, refusing to seat either judge, and then have the court support the judicial commission (and the constitution).

Wishing isn't a very good form of government.

Mel March 6, 2009 5:16 PM  

Wow, lots of "concerned" Anonymous commenters all of a sudden. Nice of the mobies and trolls and "concerned" conservatives come out to play.

If you're really concerned about this (especially if you are a regular commenter here): Pick a name! Stop commenting as "Anonymous." It's annoying.

Ramrocks March 6, 2009 5:22 PM  

To our ignorant "concerned" Anonymous:

I think you are the same "concerned" Anonymous from the open thread last night.

I'm going to answer you here as I answered you there:

First, you claimed that Palin was never a member of a pro-life group before the election. That is a flat out lie. Palin was the invited speaker at a number of pro-life events. In fact, she was scheduled to speak at a pro-life event at the RNC before she was McCain's vp pick. Laura Ingraham filled in for her at the last minute. She has been a member of Feminists for Life for years. And she has never hid her pro-life beliefs -- NEVER. She is second to none in living her pro-life beliefs. She doesn't believe in abortion in any instance. You go find another woman politician other than Michele Bachmann who is as strong a pro-lifer as Sarah Palin.

I can not express how outraged I am by SOBs like you who claim that Sarah Palin isn't a "real" pro-lifer. How dare you claim such a thing after what the media put this woman through because of her pro-life beliefs! HOW DARE YOU QUESTION HER PRO-LIFE CONVICTIONS! Her pro-life beliefs are one of the leading causes of Palin Derangement Syndrome. She has been vilified because of her sincere and principled beliefs. A less principled politician would have caved long ago. Only a sincere and principled woman would hold firm to her convictions in the face of such criticism.

And as for your stupid comment (from yesterday) about Palin not attending a March for Life -- are you not paying attention? She can't leave her state to attend the NGA, do you think she can join a protest march in the same month and week that she has to give her state of the state address to open the legislative session? You bloody imbecile! I think Sarah Palin needs to have a Sister Souljah moment with you jackasses. You're an embarrassment to the pro-life movement.

And as for your comment about the "pro-choice" contributors here, we don't have a litmus test for our contributors, but I'm fairly certain that most, if not all, of us are as pro-life as Sarah Palin.

She had a choice between a liberal Democrat pro-choice enviro-activist or a liberal Independent pro-choice candidate. She choice the lesser of two evils. And no, she did not have any other choice. Neither did Murkowski. She has sworn an oath to uphold her state's constitution. This is the process set out in that constitution. She did her duty to the best of her ability.

We are very tolerant of opposing view points here. But from now on, you either pick a name, or your anonymous comments will be deleted.

If you do not have a Blogger or OpenID account, just click the "Name/URL" option and add whatever name you want (you don't have to add a URL).

Just pick a name.

Anonymous,  March 9, 2009 11:27 PM  

I think it was gangstalking the way they stuck up for Obama and attacked Sarah Palin.

lla August 12, 2009 4:55 AM  

The article written by your very good, I like it very much. I will keep your new article. This is my web site http://www.crazypurchase.com, we do China Wholesale, wholesale from china, buy products wholesale , China Wholesalers, who are interested, you are welcome to look at.

lla August 12, 2009 4:56 AM  

Want to wholesale handbagsandLevi jeans from online stores.Classic tattoo art and fashion classic elements included in the ed hardy clothes . You’ll hear a lot more Burbrery Polo Shirt of in the future I’m sure. Babolat aeropro drive Racquets is Nadal's babolat tennis racket used.In many places to be able to buy cheap tennis racquets. You can find cheap jacket inmage on our web. some new style Puma basket is in fashion this year. If you want to buy the Cheap puma shoes shoes ,you can buy them online. you’ll hear a lot more Burbrery Polos of in the future I’m sure. In fact, in today’s world, many ed hardy shirtsdesigns are more or less the same with each other. Diesel Jeansand Levis JeansLevis Jeans is now the favorite on behalf of young people.
puma basket
Lacoste polo shirts
nike max shoes

milf September 18, 2009 5:01 PM  

1。é‚£ę··åˆē‰©ę˜Æę›“ē¼“ę…¢ēš„ ... ä½†ę˜Æ Lexus ēš„å³å°†åˆ°ę„ę··åˆēš„ē‰ˆęœ¬ ' å°†ę˜ÆęÆ”ę°”ä½“ę°”ä½“ę›“åæ«ēš„å”Æäø€ēš„ē‰ˆęœ¬å¦‚å„½åœ°ęœ‰ę›“å¤šé©¬åŠ›。äøč¦č‡Ŗå¤øé€Ÿåŗ¦,ä½†ę˜Æęˆ‘č¢«åøå¼•äøŠč½®ęµå¼€č½¦é€č”Œäøŗ 90,ä½†ę˜Æč­¦åÆŸē»™ęˆ‘äø€ę¬”ä¼‘ęÆ。
2。é‚£äøę˜Æå¾ˆå¤šę°” 体
å°†č¢«čŠ‚ēœ ... åŖę˜Æé€ščæ‡åœØåŸŽåø‚ä¹˜å…¬äŗ¤č½¦å¾€čæ”ęˆ‘å‚Øč“„čæ‡ę„ $ 5000/yr äøŽęˆ‘ēš„ä»„å‰ēš„ę±½č½¦,å‰ę™®č½¦åˆ‡čÆŗåŸŗē›øęÆ”。超过 5 幓,会是 $ ę›“äøē”ØčÆ“ä¼ščæ›äø€ę­„å¢žå¼ŗęˆ‘ēš„å‚Øč“„ēš„ęœ€čæ‘ēš„ęÆ”ēŽ‡čæœč¶³ēš„ 20K。čæ™ę ·é™¤éžä½ ę˜ÆåœØä½ ēš„ēˆ¶ęÆēš„åœ°äŗ§äøŠåøēš„äø€äøŖęµŖč“¹ēš„å„æå­,ä½ ēš„å£°ę˜Žę˜Æäø€ęŸå…¬ē‰›。

milf September 18, 2009 5:01 PM  

3. ęƒ³č±”ęˆ‘ēš„45 č‹±é‡Œēš„äøŠäø‹ē­äŗ¤é€šę“ēŗµ(90 r/t)和
45mpg ęÆå¤©ę˜Æ 2 åŠ ä»‘åœØęˆ‘ēš„ę—§č½¦äøŠ>äøŽ 8 加>仑相>比。é‚£ęÆå¤©ę˜Æ 6 >åŠ ä»‘ēš„äø€ē¬”>储蓄, 120 åŠ ä»‘ęÆęœˆ, 1440 åŠ ä»‘ęÆå¹“ęˆ–č€… 5040 ē¾Žå…ƒ(ę ¹ę® 3.5 ē¾Žå…ƒ/加仑) ... åŠ äøŠå®ƒå‘č”Ø 1/10th CO2。å¤šę„šč ¢ę˜Æå®ƒäøč¦éŖ‘äø€äøŖ,åŽ»ē®—čæ›ä»Šå¤©å’Œå¹“é¾„。
4.缺少了解 ... ę˜ÆēœŸēš„,å®žé™…äøŠęˆ‘äøŖäŗŗčæ™ę ·é‚£ę ·å–œę¬¢å®ƒęˆ‘åÆčƒ½äŗ«å—ę‰€ęœ‰é¼“åŠ±;ēØŽ,åˆä¼™ē”Øč½¦,å…č“¹åœč½¦ē±³, prius äøšäø»ä¹‹é—“ēš„ē§˜åÆ†ēš„äæ”å·,等等;čæ™ę ·č‡Ŗē§åœ°čÆ“é‚£ęˆ‘ēœŸåœ°åœØé‚£é‡ŒåœØäŗ«å—åœØę‰€ęœ‰ę°”ä½“ę±½č½¦äøšäø»äøŠēš„ę‰€ęœ‰ęƒé‚£ę²”ęœ‰äø€äøŖęƒ³ę³•å¤šå°‘ęˆ‘čæ™č¾†ę±½č½¦ęœ‰ēš„å¬‰ęˆ。ꈑ junked ęˆ‘ēš„ SL,éƒŠåŒŗåÆ¹ęˆ‘ēš„ Prius ... ä½ åŗ”čÆ„ä¹Ÿ。

Anonymous,  December 10, 2009 12:56 AM  

新宿 ćƒžćƒƒć‚µćƒ¼ć‚ø
[url=http://www.shoe-zoo.jp/]募金[/url]

film izle April 4, 2010 5:41 PM  

tks a lot. that's my device. Worked like a breeze. Beautiful! Linux everyone!

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP