I saw this on Sarah Palin's Facebook page and I thought maybe my readers would want to see it.
Statement from SarahPAC on Governor Palin's selection of Judge ChristenGov. Palin is totally pro-life. Always has been. Always will be. She believes in a culture of life from cradle to grave. Her choice for Supreme Court judge was made in accordance with Alaska law. She chose the person most qualified from the names sent to her. The Governor's choice has a record of fairness. That is important as the courts sort out some very thorny issues. Governor Palin's choices were either a liberal or an independent. She went with the independent. And as the following article reflects - this selection process is flawed.
Process of selecting Alaska's judges is clearly flawed
By Bob Flint
Catholic Anchor Online Alaska courts have a long history of removing contentious social and cultural issues from the democratic process. Court rulings have forced private hospitals to perform abortions, ordered gay marriage and benefits, required taxpayer funded abortions and interfered with parents' rights to be involved in the abortion decisions of their minor child. These court rulings involve the creation of new and novel legal doctrines untethered to our Constitutional history, intent, or even language. The decisions of the public and their elected representatives are ignored, not to mention the rights of individuals to parent their children or perform services or charity without being forced into immoral and abhorrent practices. The Alaska courts have consistently struck at such basic moral rights as life, family, marriage and conscience, undermining in the process the essential pillars on which society is based. The church does not govern the secular world, which has its own legitimate autonomy, but autonomy does not mean exemption from fundamental moral law. It is the duty of all Catholics to take part in the secular world with such moral principles as their base. This includes the courts, how judges are chosen, how they decide and what they decide. Unlike other public officials, the judiciary operates largely outside the public scrutiny, including the judicial selection process. Policy makers who are elected officials are chosen in a public process and are subject to strict sunshine rules when policy is being made. Unelected policy makers — judges — are selected in secret and are subject to no effective public control or accountability. Therein lies the flaw in the selection process. Our selection method consists of a nominating committee, called the Alaska Judicial Council, made up of the Chief Justice, three lawyers chosen by the bar association and three lay members appointed by the governor. Thus, the lawyers are in the majority. The Judicial Council nominates candidates for appointment by the governor who must select from these nominees. In theory, though not in practice, the Judicial Council ignores political or ideological considerations when nominating, leaving those to the elected official, the governor. The State Constitution's laudable goal was to eliminate the political influence of elections and the cronyism of direct appointment. Regrettably, experience has shown that special interest influence cannot be held at bay, which now turns out to be the biggest legal special interest of all, the Alaska Bar Association. The Alaska Judicial Council deliberates and nominates in secrecy. It issues no reasons for its choices or rejections. Other than vague reference to "most qualified," (a term contained not in the Constitution but in the Judicial Council's own bylaws) or "best available timber," a wish by a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, no discernable standards for choosing nominees exist. Obviously qualified candidates are routinely not nominated. This year, one of only two nominees to the current Supreme Court vacancy was not nominated for the same position last year, thus appearing to have moved from unqualified to qualified in a very short time without any observable change in his actual qualifications. The judicial selection process is clearly flawed and in need of substantial reform. It was undoubtedly an error to entrust the choice of such important public offices to the bar association. If the legal profession and the judges who come from it would respect their role in the democratic system, the current system would work, but that has proved impossible. The temptation of power is simply too great. Short of a Constitutional amendment, the public and the governor can demand transparency in the entire nominating process, the creation of standards by which nominations are made, the elimination of ideological considerations and the nomination of the maximum number of candidates, not the minimum. The selection process and its results cannot be ignored. No progress can be made if time after time the unelected juristocracy intrudes on the workings of democracy with edicts shaping the world to their own ideological and moral vision. The writer is a member of the Alaska Bar Association and an attorney in Anchorage.
Dear SarahPAC Supporter,
