Vote no on Carney and Henderson

Who decides?

In an absolute monarchy, one person – the king – decides.

In a pure democracy, the people decide, directly.

In a constitutional republic, such as the United States, the elected representatives of the people decide — up to a point. Certain unalienable rights, enumerated in the Constitution, are not subject to the will of the majority. Your rights of free speech, to keep and bear arms, and due process are examples.

In our system, judges are entrusted with deciding precisely what areas are off limits to majority rule. Because it is a trust of such extraordinary importance – and, in fact, is essentially undemocratic – it must be exercised with restraint. The legitimacy of our form of government derives ultimately from the consent of the governed. That consent could be lost if the judicial power continually, , and capriciously, imposes its views on the people.

Regrettably, in Alaska this is exactly what has happened.

Who decides how to limit the right to privacy of a convicted sex offender? Does the right of the people to have the means to protect their families from such predators outweigh the privacy rights of a convicted felon? When Justice Susan Carney overruled the elected representatives of the people – the legislature and the governor – she decided they had no right to make that determination. That decision was for her and her fellow judges. Who decides if there should be public funding for abortion? She and her colleagues get to decide that, unilaterally. When the law says the permanent fund dividend should be calculated in a certain way, she and the judges get to decide if that is good public policy. Nobody else.

Not content with usurping the legislature’s authority, Judge Jennifer Henderson has recently decided that she can take over the budgetary authority of the Governor. She’s decided that his veto of a portion of the court system’s budget is unconstitutional. Not only do the judges want to write our laws, they want to control state spending. The arrogance is astonishing.

What Justice Carney and Judge Henderson have in common is an extravagant vision of their role as judges. Both have overstepped th e proper bounds of their authority. Both should be denied retention on November 3rd.

They should be rejected not because their views on these issues are wrong. People of good will can agree or disagree with their positions – that’s politics. But they removed these subjects from the give and take of public discussion and debate, where they properly belong, and took upon themselves the right to decide.

Their supporters argue that they are only interpreting the law, but that claim is camouflage for what can justly be labeled as judicial imperialism. It is their interpretation of the law that is the problem. They interpret the law and the Constitution in such a manner as to empower themselves, and disenfranchise the people and their representatives. When they decide that a public policy has a constitutional dimension (often involving the amorphous right to privacy) they assert their own jurisdiction, their right to control the outcome of the policy dispute.

It’s also been said that a few bad decisions should not be enough to deny retention. But in the cases of Carney and Henderson, it is not as though they simply made some sort of mistake. Their decisions reveal a gross and fundamental misunderstanding of their role as judges.

Their defenders insist that judicial retention elections, like judicial appointments, should only be about competence, that anything else threatens the independence of the judiciary. To the advocates of judicial independence I have some simple questions. Is that independence absolute, or is there some limit to it? Can it, in fact, be abused? Can it be taken to extremes? The answers to these questions, it seems to me, is obviously yes.

The United States Supreme Court was magnificently independent when, in the Dred Scott decision of 1857, it declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, unraveling decades of political work aimed at averting a war between the states.

Now there was an independent judiciary! Also, unfortunately, an extremist judiciary, abusing its powers. Nothing could be done about them, so half a million American soldiers were killed by one another in a Civil War the Supreme Court made virtually inevitable.

Alaskans for Judicial Reform is not engaged in an assault on the independence of the judiciary. In fact, we believe independent judges are the guardians of our liberties.

But who guards the guardians?

Who decides if judges have gone too far, have usurped the authority of the elected representatives of the people, and imposed their views on their fellow citizens?

The answer, in Alaska, is — you do.

(Fritz Pettyjohn was Chair of Alaskans for Judicial Reform from 1988 to 2000.)

Trump’s second term: no more Mr. nice guy

President Trump has been easy on Communist China, but I think that changes in 2021. Their virus not only killed more than 200,000 Americans and put him in the hospital, it ruined our economy and nearly cost Trump his reelection. I don’t think he’s going to let them get away with it.

The ultimate goal, necessarily unstated, is the overthrow of the Communist Party, and allowing the Chinese to decide how they should be governed. In the mean time, unfortunately, the long suffering people of China will have to bear the consequences of their rulers’ decisions.

If we wanted to, we could bring the Chinese economy to a screaming halt in a matter of weeks. China relies on maritime commerce. Raw materials are shipped in, and finished goods are shipped out. All maritime commerce in this world, including the free flow of oil, takes place at the sufferance of the United States Navy. One of its carrier battle groups is more powerful than all the world’s other blue water vessels combined.

The President doesn’t need to take such drastic steps as cutting off its oil to make China feel the pain. He has many arrows in his quiver, many weapons at his disposal.

And China is weak. Unleashing the virus was a sign of weakness, of desperation. China is on the slippery slope down, and the Communists who rule the country are aware of it.

Before they spread the virus, they were afraid of a second Trump term. Now they should be very afraid.

You’re fired? I don’t think so.

On just about any possible debate topic, Trump has a record he can brag about. And Biden has a record, or a position, which makes him vulnerable.

So no matter what the subject matter, it seems to me President Trump needs to, in order, 1) talk about the accomplishments of his first term, then 2) criticize the Biden position, and 3), in summation, explain why his election will produce a better outcome for the large majority of the American people.

When he debated Clinton four years ago, Donald Trump was a novice, untested in politics and government. A lot of people, myself included, didn’t know what to make of him. He’s learned a lot, and accomplished a lot. He should talk about what he’s learned, and how it has made him a better President.

A presidential debate is a joint, televised job interview. And when you’re hiring someone for a big job, you value experience, and past success.

That’s why Trump is not going to get fired.

The lamentations of their women

On election night I’ll watch Fox, but I’ll be recording the other networks, so I can watch them react to Trump’s victory. It will be an extreme dose of schadenfreude. There will be horror, and rage, and tears. All joyful to behold.

I’m confident in large part because of the shy Trump voters. They don’t want to admit they’re voting for Trump. They don’t like Trump. They can’t stand Trump. And they would never consider admitting they support him to a pollster. They may not admit it to their own family.

But voting for Trump is in their own self interest, and that’s what they’ll do.

Donald Trump isn’t the man you want your son to be, and he sure as hell isn’t the kind you’d want to marry your daughter. He’s no moral paragon, he’s rather the opposite.

He’s an anti-politician, who speaks the plain truth. In 2016 he barely beat the most disliked candidate in history. On Nov. 3rd he’ll beat the worst candidate. He needs all the help that he can get.

There will never be another one like him.

An old Indian trick

As wise stewards of the land, North America’s Indians routinely started forest fires. They wanted grazing grounds for the animals they hunted, and open spaces to live and hunt on. So before Columbus arrived there was a lot less forested land than we have today.

The Europeans put an end to the Indian fires, and for centuries harvested the forests for timber. But that has ended in many parts of the country, California in particular. After the 1906 earthquake, San Francisco was rebuilt using lumber from the Santa Cruz forest, just south of the city. But I don’t believe it’s been harvested since.

It’s in flames right now, with 70,000 evacuated, including four members of my family, who are staying with Babbie and I. There are no fire breaks in this forest, so the fire is only 7% contained. The forecast calls for another dry lightning storm. The first one started these fires a few days ago.

If the Indians managed the land, the fires they started would have resulted in the fire breaks necessary to stop the spread of a forest fire. Or if this forest was managed according to the best practice, limited timber cutting would have been allowed, creating man-made fire breaks.

But because the state of California is governed by lunatics, it just burns.