She couldn't have chosen to appoint no one and demanded a more acceptable nominee?
That question is still accepting the original assumption, which I challenge, see post #117.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2200773/posts?page=117#117
According to the article, she’d have to change Alaska’s Constitution to do a direct appointment of her own (The Governor’s) choosing.
Be careful what you wish for. Your next Governor might be a Socialist like mine is in Wisconsin.
Apparently not. The judicial council would just bounce the same two names back to her and it would end up being an endless political game of ping-pong. Plus, the state constitution (listed in many posts on this thread) says that the Governor “shall” appoint a nominee from one of the names given by that council. She doesn’t have a choice. The nominee she picks is then subject to an election (I guess just a “keep them in office? yes/no” type) at the first general election after three years, and every ten years thereafter.
I can’t understand why people seem to be refusing to understand this. She was boxed in, she doesn’t have a choice by her own state’s Constitution, the thing that she’s sworn to uphold.
}:-)4