- not upholding unfunded mandates on businesses,
- using strict constructionist interpretations of the state constitution,
- not letting foreign courts determine Oklahoma law
To be sure; the high court has lost the respect of most all of the state's conservatives. They have become inconsistent in their positions. Let's make sure we are not inconsistent in our principles and positions.
Here is the portion of the OCPAC publication where their rationale for rejecting judges is posted...
3. Judging Justices. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices James Winchester and Donald Combs will be on the ballot. Vote NO on both! In the last few years, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has:
Download this Judging Judges Flyer and give a copy to everybody at church. Ask them to vote NO on Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices James Winchester and Donald Combs.
- The court has been properly criticized for ignoring the plain language of the constitution when it opposes their preferred outcomes. But the Oklahoma Constitution has a horrible section which limits religious expression even further than the US Constitution. It's known as the "Blaine Amendment" language. That section needs to be removed, and SQ790 does just that. Past courts have ignored the Blaine language but this time the court did not. The original state constitutional convention should never have adopted this and the legislature should have acted many decades ago, to repeal it. this year we are fixing the problem as voters.
- Individuals and businesses have decried the legislatures for passing unfunded mandates on business. Yet we see a great willingness to do so when we conservatives hate that business. When we do pass unfunded mandates, we give political cover to liberals who would do the same. We lose the moral high ground. If there is a case of equalizing regulation or providing constitutional public safety oversight, then we justify it on constitutional grounds rather than punitive efforts to run a disfavored business out of the state.
- When other states convict a hiker with felony exposure for urinating in the woods, they often go on that state's sex offender list. But the Oklahoma code might not consider the particular facts of the case to warrant a felony or a permanent place on an interstate list. Thus, our 10th amendment "state's rights" require us to not use another state's laws to determine who our "deplorables" are. If the high court is making this point in their ruling, we conservatives must concur.
- There is a body of thought regarding 4th amendment privacy which says the state must have probable cause before gathering bodily evidence from an individual. If this is the reasoning of the high court in preventing tissue samples from minors, we conservatives must concur.