Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Should Alaskans Vote To Retain Alaska Supreme Court Justice Dana Fabe? Alex Bryner Squares Off Against Jim Minnery

One of Alaska's more controversial jurists is up retention in the November 2nd general election. Supreme Court Justice Dana Fabe, who's alienated a number of Alaskans due to her judicial activism, is on the ballot. Justice Fabe has received good marks and an affirmative recommendation from the Alaska Judicial Council; you can access information on all Alaskan judges up for retention HERE.

On October 26th, 2010, the Anchorage Daily News presented point-counterpoints arguments from two respected pundits. In a column entitled "Underhanded attack pushes single agenda", Alex Bryner, a lawyer who once served on the Alaska Supreme Court, expresses support for the retention of Dana Fabe. Unfortunately, much of his column is an attack on those who oppose Justice Fabe's retention, as he characterizes opponents as "Outsiders". Bryner claims we shouldn't be "targeting" judges for making politically unpopular decisions, although these judges willingly submit themselves to a political process by standing for retention; he believes we should evaluate judges strictly on technical competence. Bryner characterizes Dana Fabe as a wise, fair and diligent judge who's has worked effectively with legislators and executive branch officials of all political stripes, has earned national acclaim for her leadership as a justice, has regularly taught students and their teachers about Alaska's legal and constitutional traditions, and has consistently received high ratings from attorneys, jurors, police and probation officers, and court employees.

The opposing point of view is expressed in a column entitled "Hold judge accountable for decisions", authored by longtime pro-family activist Jim Minnery of the Alaska Family Council. Unlike Bryner, Jim Minnery focuses strictly on Justice Fabe's deficiencies. He opines that Justice Fabe has abused her authority on a multitude of occasions, to include striking down Alaska's Parental Consent Law freely chosen by the voters, as well as in other rulings that prohibited Alaskans from voting on a proposed amendment limiting the rights of prisoners, eliminating part of an amendment defining marriage in our constitution before voters had their say, and ordering Valley Hospital to perform elective (not medically necessary) abortions -- even though their board didn't want to. Minnery reminds us that we do indeed have the right to vote on judges based on whether they agree with the judicial philosophy the judge brings to the bench as well as the judge's technical competency.

Also opposing the retention of Dana Fabe is Dr. Teresa Obermeyer, a former Anchorage School Board member and an unsuccessful candidate for several other political offices.



There are also dueling websites on the Dana Fabe issue. The NoOnFabe.org website gives six reasons why we Alaskans should reject Dana Fabe:

-- Torpedoed Parental Rights: Wrote the opinion striking down Alaska’s law that required parental consent before a minor’s abortion.

-- Undermined Voting Rights: Struck from the election ballot a proposed constitutional amendment to limit the rights of prisoners, thus robbing voters of their right to decide the issue for themselves.

-- Interfered with Marriage Amendment: Voted to delete a sentence from the Alaska Marriage Amendment that had been duly passed by the Alaska Legislature before that Amendment could be voted on by the people. Justice Fabe thought that the sentence was “superfluous”.

-- No Right to Conscientious Objection. Ruled that Mat-Su's Valley Hospital must perform elective abortions against their will.

-- Taxpayers Must Pay for Abortions: Struck down the state law and regulations which prohibited state funds to be used to pay for abortions other than to save the mother’s life or in the case of rape or incest.

-- Special Benefits for Gays: Ruled that local governments and the state government must give spousal benefits to the domestic partners of homosexual public employees.

And there is a website dedicated to the retention of Dana Fabe, DanaFabe.com. While they cite seven reasons to retain Justice Fabe, only two of them have any distinguishing merit; her enduring commitment to community outreach and education, and the contribution her judicial skills have made to help ensure timely and efficient justice delivery. Reflect Alaskan values? Which Alaskans? Maybe the Alaskans on the left, but certainly not mainstream Alaskan values. So she received a "Yes" recommendation from the Alaska Judicial Council. So what -- nearly every other judge up for retention received the same affirmative recommendation.

Those who support Dana Fabe's retention can only offer a couple of truly valid reasons. Those who oppose her retention offer six strong reasons why we should vote against her. Judges who persistently flaunt the will of the people must be held accountable.

4 comments:

  1. I'm flabbergasted that the jew/mason creature you all call [dana fabe]is still breathing.How can you all allow this antisocial creature to freely roam and feed off your hard earned property?What Alaska is lacking is professional vampire hunters.To allow this jew/mason creature to piss and shit on your dining table is above all comprehension.America is truly a country ruled by vampires. KILL ZOG.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Characterizing Dana Fabe as a "vampire" is a bit strong. But she clearly acts like an elitist who believes her own vision for society is superior to others, and does not hesitate to use her position to impose her view undemocratically.

    Sure, she said that parental notification would be more court-proof when she ruled against parental consent, but the majority of voters chose parental consent, NOT parental notification. Thus Justice Fabe disrespected the will of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought Anonymous was being sarcastic, but perhaps I just can't tell the difference between a nimrod and a sarcaster?

    Let Dana get private sector job where she can advocate for the commie way of life all she wants to. That's my take on the authoritarian, pinko lawyer.

    In any case, it wouldn't hurt for judges to leave public office when their party loses an election. It's not exactly a secret that lawyers are political critters.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I notice that well known liberal/leftist/Democrat Vic Fisher has been hired to do the voice over for the Judicial Council's radio ads in support of Fabe and the other judges (and against Postma). The same day the Judicial Council's ad aired on the radio, Vic Fisher had a Compass piece published in the Anchorage Daily News supporting Scott McAdams. Can the political bent of the Judicial Council be any more obvious?

    I say, annoy a liberal on Nov. 2 and do the opposite of what the Judicial Council and Vic Fisher want, and vote NO on Fabe.

    ReplyDelete