Gov. Palin's Judicial Pick:
Jeralyn Merritt has unearthed some information on Governor Palin's sole appointment to the Alaska Supreme Court. With a retirement pending, Palin may make another appointment later this year.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
What gives?
Also, I have to say, these arrests are very troubling from a prior restraint point of view.
On the other hand, she's not one. Or a lawyer at all.
Neither is McCain.
This is the first major Presidential ticket since Reagan/Bush without a lawyer on it.
This is Harriet Meiers all over again.
I wonder if the VP picks were timed to take a least a week or two worth of heat off of each candidate while the microscope is turned to Biden and Palin...
yeah..cause SCOTUS is perfectly analagous to the Alaskan Supreme Court
When talkleft can barely pick apart the pick you know it wasn't that bad a pick.
What gives?
Mikeeyes,
Our hope is that by intentionally not reporting on this obviously important story, it will cease to exist. Remember: If it's not debated at the Volokh Conspiacy, it never happened. Incidentaly, we are also not reporting on the evacuation of more than a million people from Hurricane Gustav, also part of our plan.
We don't need reporting, I don't think. It would be useful to get an anlaylsis from a first amendement and/or libertarian view point. Of course, your blog, but in the past you (as in the plural you all) have taken suggestions in the comments and run with them. I realize the commenter was snarky so I understand the response. Thanks.
Snarky (for this audience) would making the parallel between Theodore Roosevelt's ascension to the Vice Presidency in order to get rid of his reforming ways in New York (via Sen Hannah) and Sen Steven's need to rid himself of a reforming governor in his state. Make an historical comment that has nothing to do with reality yet puts in a little jab :grin:
I would wager that most of VC's writers, and even commenters, are far more knowledgeable about international law, and the federal government, than Ms. Palin. This is really frightening....she makes W. look like a scholar, by the way.
That's the second time I've seen that inaccurate statement. Is that being reported by the media or something?
And it wasn't even that long ago. It would be non-notable even if it were true. Weird.
Your first point is debatable, but what is wrong with a strategic pick? In fact, why on earth would any presidential candidate make a non strategic pick for a vice-president?
As to the unqualified - if you pick a person experienced (like Biden), you get yelled at for picking a person entrenched in politics. If you pick a person who is not entrenched in the powers that be, you get criticized for lack of experience. How do you win? Nobody will ever have it all. Besides, it is not "obvioius" to me - or a lot of others - that she is not qualified. At most, your argument is really "in my opinion, she is not qualified."
His Mormon handicap isn't much worse than her Fundamentalist handicap, at least as far as common sense is concerned.
It's getting really hard to tell what's parody. A person that believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, does not believe in evolution, and that the Earth was literally created in 7 days has math and science credentials?
It's just absurd.
Asking "what gives" because someone isn't spending a beautiful day blogging about a minor story over a holiday weekend is really sort of a weird thing to do. Or so it seems to me, anyway.
Anyway, hat are the legal issues you think should be blogged? I haven't followed the story, but the only legal issue generally presented with arrests is whether there was probable cause to make the arrest based on a constitutionally valid statute. If you have evidence that there was no probable cause or the statute was invalid, then show us the evidence (providing links, of course) and explain why you think that.
PC, we know Palin is religious and would be open to teaching both evolution and creationism in schools. But seem to have more specific information than that. Source?
I didn't extol her math and science credentials, but merely pointed out that they are a match for those of any recent executive or justice. Al Gore and Clarence Thomas, for instance.
So believing in creation makes one a fundamentalist now? Can you even be a Christian at all if you don't believe that God created the universe?
JHA
(1) Believing that the biblical creation story belongs in a science class makes you a fundamentalist. It evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science -- to test falsifiable theories.
(2) Believing in evolution does not commit you to believing in ontological naturalism. The latter implies the former, not the other way around.
(3) Belief that God created the universe is a far sight different than the assertion that God created the universe in the manner specified by one of many bibles.
After what Mitt said about him in the primary? Fuggetaboutit.
Is David Mannheimer a relative perchance?
Truly damning. The atheist majority in America is sure to reject her.
The actual Palin quote as taken from the Anchorage News, was explicitly in regard to "Creationism", (not simply "Intelligent Design") and was:
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
That's not "I don't object", and to characterize it as "I don't object" is misleading at best, as is characterizing the term "Creationism", or "creation science" as meaning only a belief "that God created the Universe". "Creationism" or "Creation Science" is sometuing which Palin and others believe should be taught as an "alternative" to the "theory of evolution". Darwin, and Wallace pretty clearly believed in God, and God as Creator, so if "creationism" is nothing more than a belief that God created the universe, the idea that it is an "alternative" to evolution is unintelligible.
So, where is the evidence of her pushing creationsim on the state School Board, or of making appointments to the Board with religion as a litmus test. Without that, there is no reason to believe the above is not a statement of a her actual position.
Number of unrepentant terrorists elected to prestigious and influential educational posts: one
"Ayers’s influence on what is taught in the nation’s public schools is likely to grow in the future. Last month, he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. Ayers won the election handily, and there is no doubt that his fellow education professors knew whom they were voting for."
Keep chasing those bogeymen.
No, believing in creationism does not make you a fundamentalist. Believing creationism should be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution does.
As we learned through the Rev. Wright episode, scrutinizing the views of a politician's pastor is not only allowed now, but is encouraged.
Palin's spiritual leaders are Dominionists. As to how much Palin agrees with her Dominionist spiritual leaders: she believes in preventing abortion even in the case of rape or incest and she believes married couples should not use contraception. Those views are well outside of the mainstream in America. The Dominionist wing of the Christian Right is ecstatic over her pick. She is one of them.
You also have to take into account the nature of Dominionism. Domionists do not believe in secular government, instead believing that the US should be ruled according to biblical law. It's Christian Sharia.
Back when the Rev. Wright controversy was being discussed on this blog I asked the conservative commenters if they really wanted to make a politician's church and religious affiliations political fodder. I was told yes, it's an important measure of a person's judgment.
So here we are with a candidate that could be a half-heartbeat away from the presidency that associates with people that do not believe in the first amendment and thinks the US should be governed by (their interpretation of) biblical law.
Your post would assume that, for instance, all United Methodists support gay marriage because the United Methodists Conference decided to support it (because two of its high ups turned out to be lesbians). While some pastors and some churches disassociated themselves with the United Methodists in disgust, others stayed in the church, since they still believed in the teachings of John Wesley.
Or perhaps you are suggesting that all Republicans have exactly the same beliefs.
I do know that when I went to church I cared a lot more about the message of the pastor I was listening to than about the policies of the high ups in the national church.
Also, can you point to a source that says that Palin believes that contraception (even among married couples) should be illegal? Obviously, if she is just personally against contraception but does not believe that it should be illegal, there is no issue. In any case, opposition to contraception is basic Catholic doctrine and so, while it may be uncommon among protestants, it is not completely outside of the American mainstream.
You'd better start educating yourself about the "string theory" debates in physics.
"The Dominionist wing of the Christian Right is ecstatic over her pick. She is one of them."
And your proof is? Zero!!!
"In his life and his legal career, Daniel Winfree has demonstrated an impressive intellect, a generous heart and a profound respect for the legal system and Constitution it relies on to guide civil life in Alaska," Governor Palin said. "I am gratified at the opportunity to place this fine man and outstanding attorney on the Alaska Supreme Court, and am confident he will serve the people of the state with wisdom and integrity."
This is good news- she mentioned his respect for teh Constitution, and not his desire to be an rogue activist.
Start here to find out about Pastor Mike Rose, the pastor of Palin's Assembly of God church. Then take a look at the Rodney Howard-Brown connection here.
The Palin pick is two days old and there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of information out there about her yet. There may be no there there, but initial impression says it merits looking into. While Obama's pastor said some offensive things, nothing that Obama has spoken about seems to agree with the radical views of Rev. Wright (AIDS was created by the government and the other tinfoil hatter stuff).
Dominionists tend to worry me a bit more than other US based radical religious movements because their ideology centers itself around instituting religious government. Stoning gays and lesbians, (their version) of Christianity as the only religion, etc.
http://lifenews.com/state2969.html
All of this information is over at my website, if you want to take a look.
Nome, he's not (couldn't resist).
The logically challenged like David Post can talk all they want about how Palin is a bad choice, but you can only compare a choice against the other possible choices. There is no perfect choice. For every other possible VP pick out there, I think that I can make the argument that their selection would have been worse than the selection of Palin.
For example, most of the other governers out there don't have significant foreign policy experience. Plus, Tim is boring. Bobby has too much work to do in LA and has only been governer for one year. We already have too many Senators on the two major tickets, plus Senators are famous for only knowing how to talk about issues. Biden certainly knows how to talk, but has he ever had to implement a foreign policy. Yes, it is true that Palin does not have significant foreign policy experience, but what Republican other than someone currently in the Bush administration does?
So, I say to all of you Palin haters out there, e.g., David Post, STFU unless you have an argument for why someone would have been a significantly better pick.
Jury Rights Day
WHEREAS, September 5, 2007, will mark the 337th anniversary of the day when the jury, in the trial of William Penn, refused to convict him of violating England’s Conventicle Acts, despite clear evidence that he acted illegally by preaching a Quaker sermon to his congregation.
WHEREAS, by refusing to apply what they determined was an unjust law, the Penn jury not only served justice, but provided a basis for the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, religion, and peaceable assembly.
WHEREAS, September 5th, 2007, also commemorates the day when four of Penn’s jurors began nine weeks of incarceration for finding him not guilty. Their later release and exoneration established forever the English and American legal doctrine that it is the right and responsibility of the trial jury to decide on matters of law and fact.
WHEREAS, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments are included in the Bill of Rights to preserve the right to trial by jury, which in turn conveys upon the jury the responsibility to defend, with its verdict, all other individual rights enumerated or implied by the U.S. Constitution, including its Amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the State of Alaska, do hereby proclaim September 5, 2007, as:
Jury Rights Day
in Alaska, in recognition of the integral role the jury, as an institution, plays in our legal system.
Dated: August 31, 2007
Of course it was just "rhetorical."
I would assume she, and pretty much 49 other governors in the U.S., are less knowledgeable about many aspects of law than most of VC writers, who are, after all, full-time law professors. But other than being attractive, what basis do you have for treating her as dumb?
http://volokh.com/files/jim-800px-Sarah_Palin_Germany_4.jpg
Wow!
But wait? Which hospital on this Planet Earth of ours keeps patients in bed wearing the clean, ironed military uniforms? Remember, he was supposedly evacuated from Iraq war zone day earlier.
Eugene, you wanna lie to us? Then just get right pictures!
Eugene's poor lie attempt
"While Obama's pastor said some offensive things, nothing that Obama has spoken about seems to agree with the radical views of Rev. Wright (AIDS was created by the government and the other tinfoil hatter stuff)."
True. But in Palin's case, so far, we do not even have evidence that her religious leaders have said things that are even close to be as offensive as Wright's radical views, much less that Palin herself would agree with such radical statements. If you find evidence that her spiritual leader is an actual Dominionist who believes in, for example, imposing the death penalty for homosexual conduct, then that would make Palin's situation comparable to Obama's in that respect (and presumably in that case people would be asking that she distance herself from said person; after all, McCain distanced himself from John Hagee for much, much less).
Also, I can't help but finding your speculations about Palin's possible desire to censor library books ironic given that the Princeton University library removed access to Michelle Obama's senior thesis and the Obama campaign worked with the Chicago public library system to take out information connecting Obama to Ayers.
Here's the accompanying text:
Gov. Sarah Palin visits Army Private James Pattison during a morale tour at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl , Germany, July 26, 2007.
(U.S. Air Force/Airman First Class Kenny Holston/Handout/Reuters)
The funniest part of your objection to Prof. Volokh is that you seem to think that he fabricated her well documented trip to Germany. What's the point of such an easily disproved lie?
Not a big fan of "they did it too!", but yes, that was wrong. Covering up specific information (I'll look it up) from the Obama's is certainly not the proper way to own up to your past.
There's also a basic competency test, one would hope:
Beyond the idea that the pledge was written by a socialist in the late 19th century, the idea that "Under God" was put into it by our founding fathers (rather than a half century after its writing)?
Yeah, trivia I guess.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836384597&play=1
Eugene did not fabricate. That is clear. Eugene is dumb by recyclyng an OBVIOUS LIE staged by PsyOps.
That "soldier" jumped into the bed a few seconds earlier just for the photo-op.
But what do you expect from a guy whose only credential is that he was a clerk of perv sex addict Kozinski?
ISAF badge would suggest he was not wounded in Iraq...
The uniform in that picture is clean, which one would expect when it isn't being used int he field. As for "pressed," the whole point of the new wash and wear uniforms is that they look like that right out of the washer.
As to why he is laying down, that is pretty much ridiculous. Where else would he be, if he has an injury that makes mobility difficult? The ability to get up, or the ability to wear clothes, doesn't imply the ability to walk pain-free. I broke my leg in boot camp, and spent 6 months in rehab. You best believe my boots were immaculately shined, even though I couldn't go without crutches or put my weight on that leg.
I wasn't aware of that. If anyone knows the text of the VC oath of office, please post it.
Even if one thinks Palin IS unqualified, all that does is put one in a position to vote for her, as the other option is to vote for someone of similar experience as President instead of VP. The nomination of such a lightweight at the TOP of the Dem ticket really makes the "experience" complaint rather silly.
And I'm sure no cynical strategy whatsoever was at work in the choosing of Biden...
I would wager that most of VC's writers, and even commenters, are far more knowledgeable about international law, and the federal government, than Ms. Obama.
Same point as above. Palin as the Dems to thank for making her choice possible.
I'm not saying one should vote for her, only that the most common arguments I've seen against her apply equally well to Obama, and he's the TOP of his ticket instead of the bottom, so I don't see the point of arguing them against HER - him, maybe...
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.