Alaska high court throws out Miller c...

Alaska high court throws out Miller claims

There are 27 comments on the The Topeka Capital-Journal story from Dec 22, 2010, titled Alaska high court throws out Miller claims. In it, The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that:

In this Friday, Dec. 17, 2010 picture, Alaska Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller, right, confers with his lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, before the Alaska Supreme Court convened in Anchorage, Alaska.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Topeka Capital-Journal.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jan 07

Woolrich, PA

#1 Dec 22, 2010
It was my understanding that Ms Murkowski had to be, according to state law, correctly spelled on the write-in ballots or they would not count. The courts threw out this requirement and substituted the "intent" of the voter.

To the reasonable man or woman, "Markowski" or Merkowski" is close enough to show the voter intent. My problem with this is that there are always unintended consequences to issue-specific rulings.By broadening the idea of voter intent, the courts have expanded the latitude in their definition of "intent."

I envision the 2012 election to e full of cases of "intent" in certain areas. Perhaps it will spill over to criminal defense cases. Many cases are cut and dried, based upon the evidence. To introduce "intent" may well confuse the issue in favor of a perpertrator as a jury tries to envision what was in his mind when he shot the gentleman at the counter in the mini-mart.

The law in Alaska was firm in its requirement that write-ins be spelled correctly. To change it on the judicial level to accommodate a candidate whose name might be subject to many variant spellings is akin to changing the rules of a baseball or basketball game, for example, in order to give one team an advantage. Obviously, there was judicial bias there.

I am just musing about this concept of "intent," not so much for the specific case in Alaska but for what ramifications, as yet undreamt of, this ruling could have for all of us in the future. It seems a simple thing, but nothing is simple these days. Life is becoming more and more of a shell game; there are few certainties and no standards left.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#2 Dec 22, 2010
LOL!!!!!!!
Ho Lee Schitt

Warrington, PA

#3 Dec 22, 2010
Glad this happened! Let the teabagger whining begin!!

“"I'm A Great American!"”

Since: Sep 08

Obama Nation! USA! USA!

#4 Dec 22, 2010
No Child Left wrote:
It was my understanding that Ms Murkowski had to be, according to state law, correctly spelled on the write-in ballots or they would not count. The courts threw out this requirement and substituted the "intent" of the voter.
To the reasonable man or woman, "Markowski" or Merkowski" is close enough to show the voter intent. My problem with this is that there are always unintended consequences to issue-specific rulings.By broadening the idea of voter intent, the courts have expanded the latitude in their definition of "intent."
I envision the 2012 election to e full of cases of "intent" in certain areas. Perhaps it will spill over to criminal defense cases. Many cases are cut and dried, based upon the evidence. To introduce "intent" may well confuse the issue in favor of a perpertrator as a jury tries to envision what was in his mind when he shot the gentleman at the counter in the mini-mart.
The law in Alaska was firm in its requirement that write-ins be spelled correctly. To change it on the judicial level to accommodate a candidate whose name might be subject to many variant spellings is akin to changing the rules of a baseball or basketball game, for example, in order to give one team an advantage. Obviously, there was judicial bias there.
I am just musing about this concept of "intent," not so much for the specific case in Alaska but for what ramifications, as yet undreamt of, this ruling could have for all of us in the future. It seems a simple thing, but nothing is simple these days. Life is becoming more and more of a shell game; there are few certainties and no standards left.
Nothing new happened here that hasn't been done elsewhere. There is no new precedent nationally; other courts have ruled that voter intent CAN be discerned by election officials.

In a perfect world everybody in Alaska would spell Lisa Murkowski perfectly & dot the "i"s too. But disenfranchising voters who messed up on a letter is equally troubling. If nothing else, most the lunatics on Topix would never have a vote that could survive the pristine spelling standard.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#5 Dec 22, 2010
Notice how quiet all the teabaggers are?

You can hear a pin drop!

And Palin's pick also!

“President DOWNGRADE..Ha Ha Ha!”

Since: Sep 09

Casselberry, FL

#6 Dec 22, 2010
Yaaaaaaaawn

The historic drubbing in November was complete with or without this senate seat going to the Republican Miller or Murkowski.

“President DOWNGRADE..Ha Ha Ha!”

Since: Sep 09

Casselberry, FL

#7 Dec 22, 2010
No Child Left wrote:
It was my understanding that Ms Murkowski had to be, according to state law, correctly spelled on the write-in ballots or they would not count. The courts threw out this requirement and substituted the "intent" of the voter.

To the reasonable man or woman, "Markowski" or Merkowski" is close enough to show the voter intent. My problem with this is that there are always unintended consequences to issue-specific rulings.By broadening the idea of voter intent, the courts have expanded the latitude in their definition of "intent."

I envision the 2012 election to e full of cases of "intent" in certain areas. Perhaps it will spill over to criminal defense cases. Many cases are cut and dried, based upon the evidence. To introduce "intent" may well confuse the issue in favor of a perpertrator as a jury tries to envision what was in his mind when he shot the gentleman at the counter in the mini-mart.
The law in Alaska was firm in its requirement that write-ins be spelled correctly. To change it on the judicial level to accommodate a candidate whose name might be subject to many variant spellings is akin to changing the rules of a baseball or basketball game, for example, in order to give one team an advantage. Obviously, there was judicial bias there.

I am just musing about this concept of "intent," not so much for the specific case in Alaska but for what ramifications, as yet undreamt of, this ruling could have for all of us in the future. It seems a simple thing, but nothing is simple these days. Life is becoming more and more of a shell game; there are few certainties and no standards left.
Point taken given the fact that Obama used this same instance of "letter of the law" vs "Intent" to have every single candidate Removed from his ballot some years ago in Illinois.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#9 Dec 23, 2010
Cue the band....

A do do do ....
another Palin-backed-candidate bites the dust
A do do do...
another one bites the dust...
And another one does
and another one does...
Another one bites the dust!!!!

Joe Miller...don't let the door to the igloo
hit you on the a$$ on they way out.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Raleigh, NC

#10 Dec 23, 2010
TonyT1961 wrote:
Notice how quiet all the teabaggers are?
You can hear a pin drop!
And Palin's pick also!
Obama, the Scumbag Candidate

He knows his way around a ballot

By David Jackson and Ray Long
Tribune staff reporters
April 3, 2007

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," Obama recalled.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/o...

It's fun to watch a POS Hypocrite like you embarrass yourself. LOL!

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Raleigh, NC

#11 Dec 23, 2010
x0x0x wrote:
Cue the band....
A do do do ....
another Palin-backed-candidate bites the dust
A do do do...
another one bites the dust...
And another one does
and another one does...
Another one bites the dust!!!!
Joe Miller...don't let the door to the igloo
hit you on the a$$ on they way out.
Cue the Band indeed!

Palin's New Tea Party Republicans were Swept INTO OFFICE in Historic Numbers! It was a S-H-E-L-L-A-C-K-I-N-G for the Ages agaisnt the Maggot and Scumbag-0-crats everywhere!

See you Jan 5 at the Party....The Tea Party baby!!

YES WE CAN! YES WE DID!
USA!
USA!
USA!

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#12 Dec 23, 2010
No Child Left wrote:
It was my understanding that Ms Murkowski had to be, according to state law, correctly spelled on the write-in ballots or they would not count. The courts threw out this requirement and substituted the "intent" of the voter.
To the reasonable man or woman, "Markowski" or Merkowski" is close enough to show the voter intent. My problem with this is that there are always unintended consequences to issue-specific rulings.By broadening the idea of voter intent, the courts have expanded the latitude in their definition of "intent."
I envision the 2012 election to e full of cases of "intent" in certain areas. Perhaps it will spill over to criminal defense cases. Many cases are cut and dried, based upon the evidence. To introduce "intent" may well confuse the issue in favor of a perpertrator as a jury tries to envision what was in his mind when he shot the gentleman at the counter in the mini-mart.
The law in Alaska was firm in its requirement that write-ins be spelled correctly. To change it on the judicial level to accommodate a candidate whose name might be subject to many variant spellings is akin to changing the rules of a baseball or basketball game, for example, in order to give one team an advantage. Obviously, there was judicial bias there.
I am just musing about this concept of "intent," not so much for the specific case in Alaska but for what ramifications, as yet undreamt of, this ruling could have for all of us in the future. It seems a simple thing, but nothing is simple these days. Life is becoming more and more of a shell game; there are few certainties and no standards left.
Yep, the best judges money can buy.......
Abner

Tacoma, WA

#13 Dec 23, 2010
Ho Lee Schitt wrote:
Glad this happened! Let the teabagger whining begin!!
Probably so.

Many on the right are turning a blind eye..saying that at least she's a republican. But I think the bigger story is that she's not aligning herself with the tea party..in fact making it very clear that she is distancing herself from the radical right.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/466...
I expect she will vote more as an Independent as time goes by, which will soon be attracting more and more of what's left of the true conservative base.

The alternative is the McConnell/Boehner brand, that cares more about the top 2% and corporate interests than they do about the middle class American, or the tea party that is fueled by what they've been bamboozled and convinced is runaway government and dangers to the constitution.

I admire her grit and tenacity.
HeadCheese

Decatur, GA

#14 Dec 23, 2010
Waste of taxpayer money. You loss Joe. The people have chosen.

You've been TEABAGGED!!
HeadCheese

Decatur, GA

#15 Dec 23, 2010
The laughing liberal wrote:
<quoted text>Cue the Band indeed!
Palin's New Tea Party Republicans were Swept INTO OFFICE in Historic Numbers! It was a S-H-E-L-L-A-C-K-I-N-G for the Ages agaisnt the Maggot and Scumbag-0-crats everywhere!
See you Jan 5 at the Party....The Tea Party baby!!
YES WE CAN! YES WE DID!
USA!
USA!
USA!
Based on your previous post below, demanding the Feds have the power to break up companies they deem to large, do you really think you're a Tea bag Libertarian?
The laughing liberal wrote:
Guess who Doesn't Get Broken Up?
- Banks deemed Too Big To Fail.
Talk about a structural failure of this Bill!!!!! IDIOTS!
All this while 100's of small Banks are Failing.
Seriously, do you think Libertarians want the Feds to have as much power as you want to give them? Talk about big gov.

You're clueless.
HeadCheese

Decatur, GA

#16 Dec 23, 2010
Difference between true Libertarians and Bush Repubs...now trying to claim to be one.

Most of these Libetarian stances below are from Rand Paul.

On Abortion
Libertarians: We oppose actions that compel, prohibit, regulate or subsidize abortion, sterilization or any other forms of birth control.

Republican Platform: Abortion without exception is wrong and should be opposed. Even with Federal mandates prohibiting it.

Same Sex Marriage
Libertarians: Hold that unions between adults are a private matter and should not be the subject of private licensing, regardless of sex. They call for the Feds and State to not restrict or give preferential treatment to private contracts between adults.

Republican Platform: We should amend the U.S. constitution and the Minnesota Constitution to define marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman.

Gambling
Libertarians:“Because gambling is a voluntary activity, and therefore a victimless crime…”

Republican Platform:“We should eliminate all state-sponsored gambling and oppose any expansion of gambling.”

Drugs
Libertarians: "Call for an end to the ‘War on Drugs,’ which like all previous wars on drugs is in reality a war by the federal, state and local government on the people it is supposed to protect from war. Until such time as the prohibition of drugs is repealed,we call for an end to the denial of pain relieving drugs such as marijuana and heroin to those who are suffering.”

Republican Platform: The Republican Party platform has no provision advocating the legalization of marijuana and heroin.

Prostitution
Libertarians:“Are opposed to all regulation of activities such as…prostitution”

Republican Platform: The Republican Party of Minnesota’s platform has no provision advocating the legalization of prostitution.

Right To Life
Libertarians:“…terminally or hopelessly ill persons should have the right to die at the time and place and under the conditions of their own choosing.”

Republican Platform:“The U.S. Constitutions should be amended to restore legal protection for the lives of innocent human beings from conception to natural death.”

Repubs and Conservatives on this board seem to not have a clue. They were all fooled into supporting Neo-conservative Bush/Cheney. And it pretty much destroyed the party by putting off the base.

Now libertarians have highjacked the party, and if they are truly libertarians, they will also bring a completely OPPOSITE stance from rightwing religious conservatives.

Repubs, to keep up with the Jone's, placed a Black Male as head of the RNC, even though he is PRO-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and PRO-ABORTION.

Any wonder why the repub party is lost. They and the rightwing posters have a platform build on shifting sand.

Now they want a PRO-ABORTION guy to win the next Presidential Election.

Be careful what you wish for sheep. But you deserve all you get when you ignore the facts so not to hurt your make-believe world.

Now heads back in the sand, and pretend you're libertarians now. LOL I love it.
MyKidsMom

Graham, WA

#18 Dec 23, 2010
HeadCheese wrote:
Difference between true Libertarians and Bush Repubs...now trying to claim to be one.
Most of these Libetarian stances below are from Rand Paul.
On Abortion
Libertarians: We oppose actions that compel, prohibit, regulate or subsidize abortion, sterilization or any other forms of birth control.
Republican Platform: Abortion without exception is wrong and should be opposed. Even with Federal mandates prohibiting it.
Same Sex Marriage
Libertarians: Hold that unions between adults are a private matter and should not be the subject of private licensing, regardless of sex. They call for the Feds and State to not restrict or give preferential treatment to private contracts between adults.
Republican Platform: We should amend the U.S. constitution and the Minnesota Constitution to define marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman.
Gambling
Libertarians:“Because gambling is a voluntary activity, and therefore a victimless crime…”
Republican Platform:“We should eliminate all state-sponsored gambling and oppose any expansion of gambling.”
Drugs
Libertarians: "Call for an end to the ‘War on Drugs,’ which like all previous wars on drugs is in reality a war by the federal, state and local government on the people it is supposed to protect from war. Until such time as the prohibition of drugs is repealed,we call for an end to the denial of pain relieving drugs such as marijuana and heroin to those who are suffering.”
Republican Platform: The Republican Party platform has no provision advocating the legalization of marijuana and heroin.
Prostitution
Libertarians:“Are opposed to all regulation of activities such as…prostitution”
Republican Platform: The Republican Party of Minnesota’s platform has no provision advocating the legalization of prostitution.
Right To Life
Libertarians:“…terminally or hopelessly ill persons should have the right to die at the time and place and under the conditions of their own choosing.”
Republican Platform:“The U.S. Constitutions should be amended to restore legal protection for the lives of innocent human beings from conception to natural death.”
Repubs and Conservatives on this board seem to not have a clue. They were all fooled into supporting Neo-conservative Bush/Cheney. And it pretty much destroyed the party by putting off the base.
Now libertarians have highjacked the party, and if they are truly libertarians, they will also bring a completely OPPOSITE stance from rightwing religious conservatives.
Repubs, to keep up with the Jone's, placed a Black Male as head of the RNC, even though he is PRO-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and PRO-ABORTION.
Any wonder why the repub party is lost. They and the rightwing posters have a platform build on shifting sand.
Now they want a PRO-ABORTION guy to win the next Presidential Election.
Be careful what you wish for sheep. But you deserve all you get when you ignore the facts so not to hurt your make-believe world.
Now heads back in the sand, and pretend you're libertarians now. LOL I love it.
Good post.

Reminds me of the "town hall meetings" (ha ha) in August 09.

Self professed "strict constitutionalists" "libertarians" and "real Americans" who morphed into the tea party, who yelled, screamed, bit, scratched, and threatened everything from re-writing the first, fourth and fifteenth amendments (to name a few) including invoking their "second amendment options" if they didn't get what they want..most of them not being cognizant enough to know that they were doing and demanding the very things they fantasied Obama was doing..which he wasn't.
Barbara

Princeton, MA

#19 Dec 23, 2010
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, the best judges money can buy.......
Are you talking about the 2000 SCOTUS???
FactTracker

Kansas City, MO

#20 Dec 23, 2010
MyKidsMom wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post.
Reminds me of the "town hall meetings" (ha ha) in August 09.
Self professed "strict constitutionalists" "libertarians" and "real Americans" who morphed into the tea party, who yelled, screamed, bit, scratched, and threatened everything from re-writing the first, fourth and fifteenth amendments (to name a few) including invoking their "second amendment options" if they didn't get what they want..most of them not being cognizant enough to know that they were doing and demanding the very things they fantasied Obama was doing..which he wasn't.
Thank...I think it goes to show the intelligence of Bush repubs. They have no clue what it is to be libertarian, and how it goes completely against repub party values.....but they see opposition to Dems so they they want to jump on the bandwagon.

Don't they know the teaparty was created as a revolt against the Repub party.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#21 Dec 27, 2010
The laughing liberal wrote:
<quoted text>Cue the Band indeed!
Palin's New Tea Party Republicans were Swept INTO OFFICE in Historic Numbers! It was a S-H-E-L-L-A-C-K-I-N-G for the Ages agaisnt the Maggot and Scumbag-0-crats everywhere!
See you Jan 5 at the Party....The Tea Party baby!!
YES WE CAN! YES WE DID!
USA!
USA!
USA!
Guess who benefited MOST from the "shellacking"?
OBama! Ended the year at the top of his game, baby.
Just listen to the Sunday am political shows.
All Obama FLUFF......and only warnings for Congress.

Just wait until the teapublitards have
to start paying up on all the promises
they made to their constituents during
their hopey/changey campaign!

Time to CUT PENSIONS, CUT PORK, FREEZE SPENDING
and the cherry on top? RAISING TAXES.
It's coming LAUGHING LUNATIC....IT'S COMING!!!!!!

I can already feel their pain as each and
every state declares they are bankrupt. For
once, the dems are in a great position to just
sit back and let the anger boil over.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#22 Dec 27, 2010
FactTracker wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank...I think it goes to show the intelligence of Bush repubs. They have no clue what it is to be libertarian, and how it goes completely against repub party values.....but they see opposition to Dems so they they want to jump on the bandwagon.
Don't they know the teaparty was created as a revolt against the Repub party.
The teabaggers ARE the republican party.
The FOX spews/Glenn Prick/Limpballs/teapublitard party.

Like ACORN, they were a distraction, created (by Karl Rove) to win an election and they will be gone by next year because no one is in control of them and like all political machines, they will be bought off by corporate America and begin to do what they are told at the expense of Joe SixPacks everywhere.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lisa Murkowski Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lisa Murkowski Cruises to Primary Victory Aug 17 He Named Me Black... 2
News HAARP Facility Will Be Transferred to the Unive... May '16 USA these days 1
News UA to make $2M loan to Fairbanks campus for HAA... May '16 Elf 1
News UA regents say they failed to hear of HAARP res... May '16 Santa 1
News UA to make $2M loan to Fairbanks campus for HAA... May '16 Santa 1
News Senate passes energy bill with overwhelming bip... Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News UPDATE 1-U.S. Sen. Markey places hold on Obama'... (Jan '16) Jan '16 goonsquad 1
More from around the web