noembed noembed

Commentary, sarcasm and snide remarks from a Florida resident of over thirty years. Being a glutton for punishment is a requirement for residency here. Who am I? I've been called a moonbat by Michelle Malkin, a Right Wing Nut by Daily Kos, and middle of the road by Florida blog State of Sunshine. Tell me what you think.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Where's the dramamine Part five

The Palm Beach Post contradicts itself again in an editorial today.

The Florida Family Policy Council, which is affiliated with Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, wants aspiring judges to answer the group’s questionnaire. Such questionnaires are nothing new. This newspaper, along with other organizations, distributes questionnaires with the idea of offering voters information about a candidate’s qualifications and his or her thoughts on what qualities make a good judge.

The council, though, wants to put candidates on the record about how they would rule on — big surprise coming — same-sex marriage, abortion and vouchers to attend religious schools. Council President John Stemberger, a lawyer who is promoting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Florida, said at a news conference two weeks ago: “It’s clear that certain judges may not like this. The public is demanding it.”

In fact, Mr. Stemberger’s definition of “the public” is narrow, like his group’s views. He wants candidates to do what any good judge would not — commit to a decision before hearing the facts.

The council got excited this week when the Florida Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued an opinion saying that trial-court candidates — appellate judges and Supreme Court justices are appointed — “may respond to questionnaires on such subjects as same-sex marriage, parental notification of abortion and whether the candidate agrees with certain court decisions.” But the candidate must state that “his or her answers do not constitute a promise to rule in any particular way on a case” and there is an “obligation to follow binding legal precedent.” Despite that opinion, voters should be wary of any judicial candidate who comments directly on issues or cases. That would be like a politician pandering for votes, and good judges don’t pander.

Now compare that with what the Post wrote on July 21st of 2005.

Regarding Roe v. Wade) "...does Judge Roberts believe that the Supreme Court can overturn 'settled law'?.... Why did he concur in a recent ruling that allows the government to try a suspected terrorist at Guantanamo Bay without due process?...."
Or what they wrote on September 12th 2005.

"There is more that the country needs to know about Judge John G. Roberts Jr. and his view of the law.... Judge Roberts should have to explain his views on privacy and the law, especially as it relates to the balance between individual rights and national security.... He seems to favor restrictions on how strongly the government can impose environmental standards. He needs to explain his views on this subject...."

Gary Bokelmann a regular poster at the PO Box, The Post's editorial page blog made both these finds. I had seen the Post's editorial earlier and was going to do a search in preperation for this blog post but Gary beat me to it. Thanks Gary.

The Post's hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty knows no limits. If questioning of Federal judges is needed, so should it be for local judges. The PO Box Blog shows again that Randy Schultz and the rest of the Post editorial board takes their readers for idiots. How they can look at themselves in the mirror I still don't know.

Linked to- Bright & Early, Basil's Blog, Cao's Blog,

Listed on BlogShares