Please be sure to check out this blog before voting if you have a chance.
http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/
Recent article titles include:
Alaska Judicial Retention Election: Vote Yes On Judge Richard Postma, And No On Justice Dana Fabe, Judge Patrick McKay, And Judge David George
Alaska U.S. Senate Candidates Sound Off On Affirmative Action; Joe Miller Offers The Best Balance Between Liberty And Equality
Alaska U.S. Senate Candidates Sound Off On Global Warming In Anchorage Daily News Q&A; Joe Miller The Best Choice For Energy Independence And Affordability
Showing posts with label Supreme Court Justices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court Justices. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
UPDATE: Judge the Judges
I recieved this email with the following judge information (Be sure to click on the link to see specific judge recomendations):
In part it says, "What does anyone know about judges? Is the fact that they may be good tempered more important than their philosophy of government? What about their deference to the people and to legislators when they act against the judges personal views on public matters?
Conservatives and Common Sense Independents know that a judge must understand the limits of their own power. That the people have the right to determine their culture in line with the original intent of the constitution.
When they lose this basic understanding, they should be released back into private life. That process of relieving them of their power over the people is called retention.
First, what is it? Judicial retention is a periodic opportunity for the public to judge our judges. They are voted on, or ‘retained’, in our regular elections in what has traditionally been an elective ‘nonevent.’
Judicial retention matters because the misinterpretation of even a single word in our Constitution leads to overturning supermajorities of legislators and Governors. Our judicial branch was designed to be the least powerful, not the most important. That is no longer the case. Liberalism in all of its forms is not often implemented by our elected legislators. It comes almost exclusively through the courts.
In extreme cases, our judge’s rulings can abuse the will of the people by ignoring even a Constitutional Amendment such as the Marriage act that was passed in 1998. The Marriage Act was disregarded in a recent 5 to 0 decision that recognized ‘same-sex domestic partnerships’ as having the same characteristics as married people, and therefore were eligible for benefits.
Again in 2007, overturning a supermajority of legislators, the Supreme Court, including Justice Dana Fabe, ruled that a parent's right to raise their child ends when the child begins to have sex. An outrageous and unique view in the history of Western civilization."
In part it says, "What does anyone know about judges? Is the fact that they may be good tempered more important than their philosophy of government? What about their deference to the people and to legislators when they act against the judges personal views on public matters?
Conservatives and Common Sense Independents know that a judge must understand the limits of their own power. That the people have the right to determine their culture in line with the original intent of the constitution.
When they lose this basic understanding, they should be released back into private life. That process of relieving them of their power over the people is called retention.
First, what is it? Judicial retention is a periodic opportunity for the public to judge our judges. They are voted on, or ‘retained’, in our regular elections in what has traditionally been an elective ‘nonevent.’
Judicial retention matters because the misinterpretation of even a single word in our Constitution leads to overturning supermajorities of legislators and Governors. Our judicial branch was designed to be the least powerful, not the most important. That is no longer the case. Liberalism in all of its forms is not often implemented by our elected legislators. It comes almost exclusively through the courts.
In extreme cases, our judge’s rulings can abuse the will of the people by ignoring even a Constitutional Amendment such as the Marriage act that was passed in 1998. The Marriage Act was disregarded in a recent 5 to 0 decision that recognized ‘same-sex domestic partnerships’ as having the same characteristics as married people, and therefore were eligible for benefits.
Again in 2007, overturning a supermajority of legislators, the Supreme Court, including Justice Dana Fabe, ruled that a parent's right to raise their child ends when the child begins to have sex. An outrageous and unique view in the history of Western civilization."
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Supreme Court Justice Dana Fabe
Ballot question is:
Shall Dana A. Fabe be retained as judge of the supreme court for ten years?
According to the State of Alaska Region III Voter Guide the Judicial Council Recommends a Yes Vote
Appointed in 1996 by Governor Tony Knowles (D).
Senator Mark Begich recommended her to President Obama for a U.S. Supreme Court Vacancy.
According to this website http://noonfabe.org/ they state, "In her nearly 22 years on the bench, Justice Fabe has continually used her office to advance a left-wing ideology, characterized by controversial rulings that have no sound basis in the law or the constitution."
One such instance they point out involves a case ruling from November of 2007 in which the Alaska Supreme Court overturned a law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain an abortion. According to this and this article Justice Fabe wrote the majority ruling stating, “a measure that simply provided parents with notification in advance of a minor's abortion, rather than obtaining their consent, would be legally sound.”
Actual Alaska Supreme court rulings can be found at this site: http://touchngo.com/sp/spindex.htm
This blog also has some information on her, just do a search on her name.
Update 10/27/10: more detail found here.
Note: I don't always want to say Yes to the judges just because I know nothing about them. I have realized that they are some of the people working to circumvent constitutional boundaries to push their private agendas.
Shall Dana A. Fabe be retained as judge of the supreme court for ten years?
According to the State of Alaska Region III Voter Guide the Judicial Council Recommends a Yes Vote
Appointed in 1996 by Governor Tony Knowles (D).
Senator Mark Begich recommended her to President Obama for a U.S. Supreme Court Vacancy.
According to this website http://noonfabe.org/ they state, "In her nearly 22 years on the bench, Justice Fabe has continually used her office to advance a left-wing ideology, characterized by controversial rulings that have no sound basis in the law or the constitution."
One such instance they point out involves a case ruling from November of 2007 in which the Alaska Supreme Court overturned a law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain an abortion. According to this and this article Justice Fabe wrote the majority ruling stating, “a measure that simply provided parents with notification in advance of a minor's abortion, rather than obtaining their consent, would be legally sound.”
Actual Alaska Supreme court rulings can be found at this site: http://touchngo.com/sp/spindex.htm
This blog also has some information on her, just do a search on her name.
Update 10/27/10: more detail found here.
Note: I don't always want to say Yes to the judges just because I know nothing about them. I have realized that they are some of the people working to circumvent constitutional boundaries to push their private agendas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)