Friday, June 16, 2006

Sources: Right to Life endorses Jay Drick for District Judge

My inside sources tell me that Jay Drick has received the endorsement of Michigan Right to Life for judge.

Assuming this is true, kudos to RTL. I was a critic of them when they made their decision in the US Senate race, but they've earned back some of my respect here for making the right decision.

Jay Drick is pro-life. Theresa Brennan is a multiple time donor to the MI List - the state version of Emily's List. Emily's List supports pro-abortion democrats for elective office. They are pro-abortion. Not pro-choice. Pro-abortion. (Emily's List supporters back partial birth abortion - and refused to endorse even a pro-choice congresswoman who opposes Partial Birth Abortion). Some people say that doesn't matter on the District Court level. I disagree, and the reason is this - Today's District Court judge is tomorrows' Circuit Court, Appeals Court judge or Federal judge. We do not need judicial activists and strongly potential judicial activists gaining experience at the lower courts to pad their resumes for future high level judgeships.

This is another reason to support Jay Drick for Judge.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your belief that making abortion illegal will reduce the number of abortions has been proven to be not true. Before 1973 there were more abortions per capita than there are today. So why do you continue on a path that does not reduce abortions? It does nothing to limit, reduce or stop abortions? What is really telling is how many of your ilk are against birth control and sexual education. Sounds just plain political as you find it here to be true. It's just about getting out the vote for republican's. Nothing more than good old fashion spin. Building more prisons and making more citizens criminals is really an agenda you seem to support.

Kevins said...

Wow, even with your record of stretching the truth and misinformation on this blog this is even a stretch for you Dan.
Its funny, just three months ago you blasted RTF because they pulled the endorsement from your boy Jerry Zandstra. Now, it’s all OK. Talk about a flip-flop. You even sent them a nasty letter, or so you say, where you said “Unless this decision is overturned, from now on I will take all Right to Life endorsements with a grain of salt.” I guess not, huh?
There is no organization that’s pro-abortion, especially Emily’s List, and you know that.
Not some people say abortion does not matter in a District Court race, everyone but you says that. There is only one court that’s going to decide abortion, and you know that too. Now, I think a lot of Judge Brennan’s abilities, and so do the majority of people in Livingston County, but she is never going to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. You know that too.
You have some pretty lame reasons for people to vote against Judge Brennan, but I notice you never mention the most important one. Judge Brennan has more experience that Mr. Drick.

Republican Michigander said...

Abortion should be a state issue. Roe V Wade is wrong and needs to be overturned. The Supreme Court violated the constitution by 10th amendment grounds.

The debate should be at the state level and decided in state legislatures across the country, as it was before 1973. It should not be decided by a bunch of unelected judges. That said, on the state level, abortion should be banned in all cases except when the mother's life is threatened.

It was activist judges that banned the pledge, forced all states to allow abortions, gutted the 4th amendment with kelo, and butchered the 1st amendment by upholding McCain/Feingold.

An activist judiciary needs to be stopped, and it has to start right at the district level, before activist district judges are promoted to Appeals or a Federal Judgeship.

Anonymous said...

Judge Brennan has a proven record of being an excellent judge. She always been a community leader. She should win in August and again in November. She understands and rules according to the law.

RKG said...

I just don't understand your constant harping on "activist judges" and think you are being disingenous in suggesting it as a basis for making a voting decision and here's why. Lord knows what kind of issue that touches on abortion would come before a District Court judge, but let's humor you and assume it happens. Right now abortion is legal and no District Court judge is going to change that. So what does "Judge Drick" do when the issue is before him? You're telling us that he is pro-life, which I assume means that his pro-life stance will impact his decision. After all, if the fact that he is pro-life is relevant, then I also assume it becomes a relevant factor in his decision making process, otherwise there's no reason elect a pro-life candidate based on his pro-life stance. So "Judge Drick" decides the case against abortion (which is legal) and all those who elected him because he is pro-life applaud him and pat ourselves on our collective backs for electing such a great judge. But, in all seriousness, wouldn't that make him the "activist judge" we all abhor? See, Dan, I think you're trying to pretend that you've got some high minded ideals that lead you to an intelligent, rational decision about who should be elected when, in fact, every argument you make for him and against Brennan can be applied as much against him and for her. Your position is all smoke, mirror and fearmongering. I will continue to call you on it every chance I get until you start making sense and suggesting that today's district court judge is tomorrows king maker isn't enough.

Anonymous said...

Abortion may not come before a District Court Judge, but it could come before a higher court. I am sure Brennan would be interested in a higher appointment- that would make her view on abortion very important. I am amazed at the lies "pro-choice" folks believe. Not only is abortion a genocide, it is a racist genocide as well. I am amazed that folks march in the streets to keep this leagal and complain that there needs to be more done in other places where genocide is happening. I pray that the scales are removed from your eyes.

Anonymous said...

Who else was endorsed?

Anonymous said...

Abortion is not going away. The Republicans need that rallying issue too much.

Republican Michigander said...

Strong accusations there. Easy to write as anyonomous. Care to sign your name to them?

Mike MacTavish said...

I agree with Dan. Sign your name to that.

I don't know Mr. Drick, but an attack on that level shouldn't be anyonomous. That's a lot worse than anything Dan's written when his Irish is up, or anything Kevin's written for that matter.

If I don't see any name signed to that, I'll just assume it's one of the million of anyonomous made up personal attacks and lies that drag down this otherwise good site.

I think Dan should ban anyonomous posts here, but that's not my decision.

Anonymous said...

There is no problem with anonymous posts. Banning them would not help anyway since it is possible to create any number of false I.D.'s.

I do agree that rumors like the one above should be deleted. This is an especially nasty type of rumor, otherwise known as hearsay, because the person making the accusation is only repeating a rumor that he claims to have heard from someone else, with no personal knowledege of the alleged incident. ANYBODY can log on here and start rumors about ANYONE, and then claim that they heard this rumor from someone else. Note also that hearsay is banned in a court of law. If a person wants to make such statements it MUST be based on something he/she actually witnessed and that person must be willing to go on record as a witness.

So I will say flat out that hearsay and unsubstantiated rumors should be banned from this board. Let us stick to established facts when making a case.

Anonymous said...

What concerns me most about Theresa Brennan is her record of being an activist and also her making donations to extreme liberal organizations. Through these actions she has already demonstrated her intense political polarity and passion. For non-judge candidates this would not be a problem, but I am extremely worried that this passion will cloud her judgement in certain types of cases. Also, while there are limited opportunities to "legislate from the bench" in her current position, should she be elevated to a higher court there will be much more potential for injecting politics into her decisions.

Yes, it is true that the same could be said about Drick but from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

The ideal judge would be a person with little previous involvement in politics or social causes. Such a person would be more likely to be neutral.

Since it looks like I am going to have to pick someone with strong established political convictions regardless, it is better to pick the person with the values closest to my own, in this case Jay Drick. For Theresa Brennan to become acceptable to me she would have to prove that she will never allow her personal politics to interfere with her decision making, and this is unlikely to happen between now and November.

patrick Flynn said...

It may be to no avail but I insist regardless - Stop defending the slaughter of innocent pre-born human beings.

Your defense is an outrage and it truly renders all else you say intrinsically absurd.

Republican Michigander said...

I decided to delete that post. I left it up for a day and called the Dricks to make sure it was seen by them and know the depths some people are going to sink to in this race.

I would have deleted posts like that if it attacked Brennan's family as well. That's not fair game here, and neither is Jay's family. If it attacked Jay himself over his lawyer career or the way he's running for office, that's one thing. This crosses the line. Twice over since it was from an "anonymous" coward who wouldn't sign a name.

While this isn't a free speech zone, I'm generally lenient on posts. I don't delete much here but stuff like that's getting the heave ho. That goes for attacks on any family of any candidate. Period, end of story.

Anonymous said...

News Flash....

Birth Control and sex education have been proven to actually reduce the number of abortions in our country! Making first trimester abortions illegal did nothing to decrease the number of abortions. Fact, overturning Roe V Wade will just make criminals out of women and their doctors. It's a proven failure at reducing abortions. You have something against facts? Or do you have an interest in building more prisons for our citizens?

Beth said...

A vote for Christina Heikkinen is a vote for the truth. She is a woman who has integrity and class. You will not find her mudslinging anyone. As a 53rd District Judge she will base her decisions on the LAW not personal opinion.

Republican Michigander said...

I don't know where anyonymous keeps getting the "make criminals out of women" and "building more prisons from". That always gets tossed in here in abortion debates.

Fact. Overturning Roe V Wade does nothing more than return the issue to the states where it belongs. Period.

Anonymous said...

Nice spin.. Do you really mean you don't want to make abortion illegal?

Let's try being very honest here.

Republican Michigander said...

Yes I do want to make abortion illegal - on the state level. That's no secret. Roe V Wade doesn't make abortion illegal. It makes it a state issue where it belongs by the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. Process is important.

Anonymous said...

Jay sure took a trip to the woodshed in the Argus today.

Anonymous said...

I live in Michigan. Try to be a staight shooter.

This will do nothing to reduce abortions (already tried that) it will make criminals of women and their doctors.

It will also bring back back alley abortions.

Birth Control works, why do those of your ilk try to make birthcontrol more difficult to get?

Kevins said...

Wow, I took a day off to spend it in the sunshine, and look what happens. I have no problem-stooping people from posting here anonymously. I have been personally attacked, called names and they even tried to intimidate me by threatening to sue me. I use Kevins as a screen name, even though it’s not my real name, but at least people know who made the argument. It’s not my blog, but I certainly could live with requiring people to use screen names. I notice dan never deleted those posts that personally attacked me and others, but the double standard on this blog is so obvious no one even pays attention. It’s OK the threats and personal attacks on me that never get deleted, but you can’t do it against someone running for elective office. Say what?
So I can infer from what I’m reading that anonymous posts carry no weight? No problem for me.

Anonymous said...

Jy needed to go to the wod shed. Who is his campaign manager? That person needs to go.

Kevins said...

The editorial and letter to the editor in todays in the Daily Press & Argus agrees 100 percent with what I have been saying on this blog for months. It’s especially nice to see because it came from an editorial board that’s conservative, and the letter is from a conservative republican. Here’s the link because you most likely will not see dan post it.
http://www.livingstondaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060618/OPINION01/606180320/1014/OPINION
http://www.livingstondaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060618/OPINION03/606180348/1014/OPINION

I also disagree with dan’s reason for deleting the post calling Mr. Drick’s personal views into question. He said its fair game if it calls into question how he is running the campaign, but I think Mr. Drick and dan made it an issue with the RTL endorsement and the attacks on Judge Brennan. I have no idea if the accusation is true or not true, but that’s a lame excise for deleting it. I’d still like dan to answer the question why the RTL endorsement is so important when three months ago be was bashing them?
I’m not a lawyer, like dan apparently is, but abortion is not a state issue, no matter how he tries to spin it.
Abortion is also not a district court issue, and using the argument to vote against someone because they may want to move up the ladder someday is ridiculous, and it says more about the people making that stupid claim. Judge Brennan is never going to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and she is the candidate with the most experience for District Court Judge of all three candidates. No one, no one has disputed those two facts.

What lies do "pro-choice" folks believe, and how is abortion a genocide and how it is a “racist genocide”, anonymous? That is ridiculous. I believe abortion should be legal, safe and rare, just like it is today.

Of course Judge Brennan is an activist, most successful people are because they try and improve their country, state and community. Why is all right for Mr. Drick to be a so-called activist?
Mr. Flynn, I will continue to support safe, legal and rare abortions.

Republican Michigander said...

Kevin, I think I did delete one of the personal attack posts awhile back. I won't swear to it, but I think I did. I know I did chastise one of the anomynous posters for doing so. If someone besides you posted your last name here, I would delete that.

Anonymous posts to me carry little weight in general, but that's just my own opinion. Others can agree or disagree. That's their call.

As for the attack on Jay's FAMILY, that's off limits. Innuendo attacks on posters' or candidates' families in general are off limits.

Kevins said...

You will not swear to it because it never happened. I’m not sure what you mean by “If someone besides you posted your last name here, I would delete that” because no one knows it, so let them post it. Again, the reason for deleting the post is wrong because you and Mr. Drick opened the door by stating his position on abortion, not that it even matters, and making other claims on his web site. Now, if you deleted it because he’s your friend, I would have no problem with that all. Try being honest. And why is the post from Mrs. Drick still posted? What is she responding to?

Republican Michigander said...

I deleted Debi Drick's response to my deleted post upon her request.

Kevins said...

That’s all it takes to get you to delete a post is a request? Great. I request you delete your post “Jay Drick Judicial Race Makes the Argus” because it’s filled with misinformation from you. Actually, it probably was a good idea for you to delete her post because after being in the military, some of the stuff she said just did not sound right to me.

Republican Michigander said...

Request denied.

Kevins said...

Why? Or are you just reaffiring your bias and double standard?