Halcro Picks a Fight with Fagan over Palin's Pick

The honeymoon is off between Halcro and Fagan...... Halcro tries laying fellow blogger Fagan out for the ten count:

The bottom line is that last week Governor Palin chose the most qualified candidate of the two names that were forwarded to her in accordance with the law.

Unfortunately for Palin, her decision not to grandstand for the conservative base will have political consequences.

At The Alaska Standard, fellow blogger Dan Fagan writes on his website:

"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

(...)

It is in fact, how Fagan began his recent blog about Palin's selection of Christen.

"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."

So why will there be a political cost to Palin for simply following the law by appointing Christen?

Will there be a political cost to Palin? No. Conservatives understand how screwed up the systems and Palin didn't have a choice. The current process is about ensuring politics is keep in the dark by an organization that has no business of being involved in the picking of Judges.

Halcro goes on:

We've all heard the debate over activist judges - a favorite of politicians trolling for votes and talk radio. This judiciary bogeyman has been around so long, we can all recite the biography.

Activist judges make law, as opposed to interpreting it. They ignore clear intent language for the sole purpose of inventing new rights while forcing their minority views on the tyrannical majority. In short, it's a conspiracy by the man to advance the positions of the liberal elites in the culture wars.

The only bogeyman here is the tyrannical majority....If that is the case, then why vote...

And for the record Andrew, intelligence should be a prerequisite when it comes to making statements about the bogeyman...

Halcro nears the end but this tidbit got a chuckle out of me:

It's also problematic to some that Palin didn't mention any concerns about the process when she named Christen or suggest the system needs to be changed. In short, many view it as a missed opportunity.

Well, Halcro acknowledges that she did, through her PAC. But he quickly steers off course on that topic and heads right towards the political waters of the Alaska Triangle named Juneau.

This is where facts and stupid statements made by politcians are found.

And it's a place where normal folk have gone and never comeback and if they did, they left the legislature to become gossip bloggers.

Halcro continues...

Meanwhile closer to home, some are using this as a reason to argue for a change the way we appoint judges to the bench and give the politicians more say in the process.

Yeah that's just what we need.

According to the Alaska Budget Report, during a recent House Finance budget sub-committee, Rep. Bill Stoltze went after the Chair of the Alaska Judicial Council over the process of vetting judicial applicants and only sending two names to the governor.

"Something between frustration and contempt, that's where I'm at," Stoltze scolded Larry Cohn, chair of the Alaska Judicial Council.

Ironically, Stoltze's comments shows just how critical it is we keep politics out of our judicial selection process. And it certainly wouldn't hurt for Stoltze and others to bone up on that whole three equal but separate branches of government rule.

Andrew, news flash, the Judicial Council is all about politics. They elect their members and one more thing, let's say someone were to try to change the process and an effort was made to try to stop the change through the courts and if it wound up before the supreme court, the Chief Justice would have to recuse themselves because they sit on the Judicial Council.

Andrew, try boning up on the whole thing about equal but separate branches of government, next time.