Alaska Court More Sensitive to Notion of Democracy than 2000 U.S. Supreme Court

October 9, 2008

A slogan bandied around by many Republicans, often with an epithet, is “judicial activism.” President Bush sneers at the notion of activist judges. Bush’s attitude of course is highly ironic as he would not have won the 2000 election without the unprecedented activism of our Supreme Court. Had it not intervened, he would have lost Florida and the election. This was an historic action by the Court, widely criticized and in one book famously called an “act of treason” by the Court because it was so unprecedented.

The Republican Party is using the courts in 2008 to try again to influence the election, this time in a more subtle manner. The Republican Party is asking the Alaskan courts to become extremely a “activist” by intruding on a purely legislative process: the statutory investigation of the governor. This is exactly what Republican dogma says is shameful: the courts ursurping the role of the legislature.

The lawsuit appears to be nothing more than a tool to stall the investigation. It claims that Palin cannot get a “fair and just” hearing in the Republican legislature. The trial judge promptly dismissed the suit and the appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court proved fruitless immediately.

I commend the Alaska courts for declining the invitation to influence the election.

Advertisements

Palin’s Attacks Continue to Backfire

October 9, 2008

Not only is McCain vulnerable to many of the attacks launched by Governor Palin but the attacks are increasingly being seen as hypocritical.  First, she is not so well established that her attacks resonate with anyone but an audience of true believers.  It is a little uncomfortable to be learning about her while she assails others.   If she were a know commodity, her attacks might have more traction.

She is increasingly though catching flack for making accusations against Obama that are in fact true of her.  Who could say that he or she has never associated even in a casual manner with someone accused of terrorism.  It is simply impossible to know that, so any denial would be spurious.

It turns out that Sarah does not have an abhorrence of convicted felons associated with terrorism.  She wanted to hired G. Gordon Liddy and appear on his talk show.

The AlaskaReport asks these questions:

Did Palin know Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary, wiretapping, contempt of court and contempt of Congress? Did Palin know Liddy was willing to kill a janitor and a journalist as part of the Watergate cover-up? Did Palin know Liddy admitted plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution? What about the plan to kidnap protesters at the 1972 Republican National Convention?

If she did not know these things, then she must acknowledge that the guilt by association game is a sleazy one.  If she knew Libby’s background then obviously she feels that people change and that it is not impermissible to innocently associate with someone who has a dark past.