I had posted this originally on my personal blog, and decided to re-post it here after I saw Feddie’s comment regarding Sarah Palin.

I have absolutely no issue with going after Republicans and especially pro-life Republicans when they betray our principles.  I had somewhat mixed feelings on Senator Brownback’s support for Governor Sebelius’s nomination to head up HHS, believing that the President of the United States essentially has carte blanche to select whomever he wants for his cabinet, assuming they are free of ethics problems (which eliminates most of President Obama’s picks at this point, granted).  But I tended to sympathize by the anger felt by the likes of Jay Anderson and Patrick Archibold. Was it really necessary for Brownback to so publicly support Sebelius’s nomination?

Today there is news of another seeming betrayal.  Governor Palin appointed a former member of Planned Parenthood to Alaska’s Supreme Court.  Outrageous! How could Sarah Palin turn her back on the pro-life cause. Well, as Conservatives4Palin and Ed Morrissey explain, Palin really had no choice.  Scratch that, she had two choices, and this was perhaps the lesser of two evils.

Here’s how the judicial selections work in Alaska,

Palin has a month and a half to choose the next member of Alaska’s State Supreme Court.  The problem is the two choices she has to pick from are justices who don’t align with her conservative views.  Alaska’s judges are selected using the Missouri Plan, which combines election and appointment in choosing the judge. The Alaska Judicial Council selects the nominees from which the governor can then make an appointment.  A total of six judges applied, but only two were elected by the Judicial Council, Eric Smith, considered very liberal, and Morgan Christen, who is viewed as more of a moderate.

As Ed explains:

Which was worse, Christen or Smith?  It sounds like Palin didn’t have much of a choice in any case.  She could have pushed back by refusing to appoint either, but her predecessor tried that and got roasted for it.  I’d have hoped that Palin would have at least attempted to press the AJC to give her a better range of nominees from which to choose.

This case demonstrates the problem with establishing independent boards to provide essentially political decisions.  The people of Alaska elected Palin to make these kinds of choices, and at least she has direct accountability to them.  The AJC has no accountability for making bad decisions at all.  Maybe Alaskans should consider a more direct system instead.

Did Palin select the better or worse of the two?  I don’t happen to know.  It doesn’t sound like either was any good from the pro-life perspective, but Palin’s selection may have been the less objectionable simply from a judicial philosophy perspective.

Matt Archibold thinks that Palin could have done more.  He writes in the comment section of his own post:

There are some things worth battling over. For Palin, I think this was one of them.

Which triggered my reply:

And what exactly was she supposed to do? Disband the independent panel and just appoint whoever she wanted?

To which Matt responded:

Yes. Some things are worth going to the mattresses over. Abortion is one of them.

That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t really answer the question of what she was supposed to do.  Was she supposed to trigger a constitutional crisis in her state?  Was she supposed to send in her state’s national guard and force a better appointment?  Perhaps she could have applied more pressure, but the former Governor had gotten into trouble himself for interfering in the process.

I think it’s absolutely crucial to hold our politicians’ feet to the fire, especially when they are politicians that we assume are on our side.  And I have no interest in bickering with a blogger or group of bloggers who I happen to agree with in principle.  But sometimes we really expect the impossible.  There are a group of pro-life bloggers that earnestly believed that George Bush could have banned abortion with the stroke of a pen.  These individuals have way too immodest an idea of the powers of politicians, even the president.

Again, we should apply pressure on our political leaders to do the right thing, but let’s not prematurely castigate them for perceived wrongs when they have not done anything to betray us.

As per Ed’s suggestion, perhaps the best thing for Sarah Palin to do in light of this situation is urge constitutional reform in Alaska.  Start there.