In recent weeks, Governor Mary Fallin made her selection for a replacement of a retired judge on the Oklahoma Supreme Court. By law she is required to choose from a panel of three nominees selected by a commission which seems to be under majority control of the Oklahoma Bar Association members. The one she chose is a deputy on the Oklahoma Attorney General staff.
It seems that almost immediately, officials of the State Democrat Party vehemently objected, ostensibly on the basis that he is not a citizen of that judicial district. This despite the latter published fact that he is native to that area and continues to own property there. Media stories stated that he resides in Edmond. Well, if a person works in Oklahoma City, it would be logical that he or she would maintain a residence nearby, as do most members of the Legislature, rather than having to resort to much greater hotel/motel expenses during the work week. It seems to me that reporters could have very easily checked the voter registration records for his reported address in Edmond to see if he is registered there, or in his home town, but no such report was seen by me.
Actually, the records of none of the three candidates nominated by the commission, the other two being sitting district judges, is presently known to me. However, it is my opinion that we citizens of Oklahoma have been for years suffering under the judicial bias of the makeup of the current justices. From what reports have come out on the logic (?) put forth in the statements they made when they have voted to overrule seemingly logical and much-desired legislation, one must come to the conclusion that the decisions are truly based on personal bias rather than facts of the Constitution.
However, knowing the record of our recent attorney general, for whom the nominee worked, it seems to me that this should be a beginning step in the right direction to bring the court back to a more even balance. And that should be of great benefit to the rest of the population.
Personal bias is readily admitted as my mind is made up that abortion is nothing more than murder for convenience. I still remember the time in 1990 when I was a candidate for House 67, a woman confronted me with the statement, “Bob, if you are going anywhere in politics, you had better get off your anti-abortion position.” Nor have I forgotten my reply: “Try to put yourself in my position. If the open abortion laws had been in effect in 1926, I probably would not be here for you to say that to.”
Within a day or two following the story on the Democrats, was a story that the ACLU had filed a legal action against the appointment. This seems very suspicious to me that there is a close connection between the offices of these two entities. And, in my opinion, the ACLU is anything but what its selected name implies. It seems that they only are supportive of issues that fall into the agenda of the C/S world movement. Further, when they become involved they seem to make every attempt to bring trial in the media rather than wait until evidence is presented in court.
No further reports on that subject has been forthcoming, although a radio news report recently stated that the case was not accepted by the court, if my ears did not deceive me.
It was of some comfort to me to be advised by the office of U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine that the ACLU receives no federal funding, like Planned Parenthood does. Along that line, a report was heard on March 7 that PRESDT had told Planned Parenthood that he would allow them to continue to receive the federal funds if they would cease doing abortions!!! For anyone who believes that the offer will be accepted, I have heard of some swampland in Florida that can be had cheap. There have been reports of the ACLU being declared to be very dangerous, or worse by the government, but have not been seen by me.