Will O'Malley Place a Judicial Stranglehold on the Free State?
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley faces a unique opportunity (and responsibility). He is poised to select three members of Maryland's highest court, the Maryland Court of Appeals.
The Baltimore Sun reports that the three judges to be replaced are three of the more conservative (an oxymoron for the Maryland court) members. Will the Governor appoint judges who will interpret the law or will we wind up with a state hight court who chooses to act more as a uber legislature?
One concern we are facing regarding these appointments is the replacement for retiring judge Dale Cathell. Judge Cathell's replacement must come from one of the nine Eastern Shore counties. To date the position has not been advertised; yet we are hearing rumors that O'Malley has settled on his choice.
If O'Malley does appoint Wicomico attorney Mike Pretl to Maryland's high court this would be a grave indication of things to come. Pretl, who has lived on the Shore a relatively short time and whose practice is focused on work for labor-backed and healthcare related groups was a key player in the fight for the "Wal-Mart bill". He is a strong backer of a single payer healthcare policy, although he denies that he advocates socialized medicine (a rose by any other name). His work with the "Maryland Healthcare for All! Coalition" is one example of Pretl's leftist leanings.
Because of the current disparity between Democrat and GOP members in the Maryland Senate, the only recourse citizens have in fighting leftist appointments by O'Malley is to vigorously lobby Democrat Senators to stop such nominations.
The Baltimore Sun reports that the three judges to be replaced are three of the more conservative (an oxymoron for the Maryland court) members. Will the Governor appoint judges who will interpret the law or will we wind up with a state hight court who chooses to act more as a uber legislature?
One concern we are facing regarding these appointments is the replacement for retiring judge Dale Cathell. Judge Cathell's replacement must come from one of the nine Eastern Shore counties. To date the position has not been advertised; yet we are hearing rumors that O'Malley has settled on his choice.
If O'Malley does appoint Wicomico attorney Mike Pretl to Maryland's high court this would be a grave indication of things to come. Pretl, who has lived on the Shore a relatively short time and whose practice is focused on work for labor-backed and healthcare related groups was a key player in the fight for the "Wal-Mart bill". He is a strong backer of a single payer healthcare policy, although he denies that he advocates socialized medicine (a rose by any other name). His work with the "Maryland Healthcare for All! Coalition" is one example of Pretl's leftist leanings.
Because of the current disparity between Democrat and GOP members in the Maryland Senate, the only recourse citizens have in fighting leftist appointments by O'Malley is to vigorously lobby Democrat Senators to stop such nominations.
Powered by ScribeFire.
4 comments:
We talked about this on a podcast months ago.
Listen here
http://theconservativerefuge.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=172470
All of last years decisions by the Court of Appeals, including the Schisler case I argued before them, had dissents which agreed with a very radical interpretation of the state constitution and executive and legislative powers. Three new members who agree with those dissenters could radically and unalterably change our state and remove the last check on runaway liberal control in Maryland.
Mike Pretl is a very shrewd, fanatical, leftist. He definitely subscribes to those who beleive that the end justifies any means. O'Malley is dangling the state to the wolves with this one.
I thought the court was probably right to reject equal protection and substantive due process claims, but the Maryland ERA, I think, requires recognition of same-sex marriage by its plain meaning.
Some will say that the General Assembly and voters never intended to allow same sex marriage when the ERA passed, and they are probably right: it probably did not enter their minds. They were thinking about discrimination against women by the government in employment, benefits, etc., most likely. But the authors of the 14th Amendment probably never intended to desegregate a school either.
Surely we can agree that a husband is not a substitute for a wife, and that allowing someone to take a husband is not the same as allowing someone to take a wife, which means that if one is not a substitute for the other, one may not "remedy" equally the deprivation of the one by allowing the other as an "Ersatz". In other words, it's not only separate, but unequal on its face. I think Art. 46's plain meaning was ignored, not enforced, by this court.
Apparently, Judge Peter Krauser, the new Chief Judge of the MD Court of Special Appeals, recently promoted by Governor O'Malley, has been involved in the covering up of a huge mistake by his left wing political and judicial allies. I guess he just could not resist considering he was the former chair of the democratic party. The whole story and supporting documents are at this new website related to the case:
www.theretainercheck.com
Post a Comment