Posted on 12/22/2010 3:43:23 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
I never got deeply involved in the exact issues that Miller was raising in his case, but I always got the impression that he isn't quite as tough in the clinches as his opponents in this case. The Murkowski bunch seems pretty ruthless.
------------
A corrupt Murkowski working side deals for votes...
Some things never change.
BTW, thanks, Alaska for foisting yet another opportunistic liberal Senator on the US.
Thanks for the info...We badly need something similar in the PRNJ and it is being worked up.
I didn’t know Joe did that. Very interesting observation and thanks for pointing it out.
Did he say he was going to ‘go for it’?
Since when does the House confirm judges/justices/cabinet members, ratify treaties, etc.?
Now that's not done all that often but it could be ~ the 9th Circuit, for example, could be easily removed to Fairbanks Alaska ~
Oh, yeah, those treaty things ~ they almost always require enabling legislation. Regarding START, if it requires dismantling missiles, that’ll have to be paid for. The House can easily stop that, and there goes START if the President can’t deliver the goods to the Russians eh.
The Court’s decision, as I read it, said the court had no choice based on state law and Federal Court decisions but that “voter intent as could be ascertained” had to be the controlling principle. In order to not disenfranchise any voter and in order to assure equal protection.
The decision spends several well-written pages addressing these topics, with many citations to laws and previous rulings, including Bush v. Gore. The decision strictly and properly ruled votes for Murky invalid when the oval was not filled in.
It is sad that Miller was smug and lazy in his campaign and bad that Murk won, but the blame lies with Miller, not the court.
Since now voter “intent” is paramount, doesn’t that give Joe a lot of votes when people wrote in his name even though his name is on the ballot as a listed candidate? I thought I heard that these ballots would not be counted. What a complete travesty of justice if true.
Naw, the problem is vote fraud, and Alaska has NO WAY of controlling it.
I read it, can could not find that part. It sounded like a lot of mumbo jumble liberal speak. One ruling relying on a lot of other bad rulings from the past(regardless of the written law).
It never ceases to amaze me that somewhere along the line lawyers manage to bring into law the idea that right or wrong does not matter if it would not affect the out come of who won. So Voting by felons for example(from that ruling) would be perfectly OK unless someone could prove that it would have affected the election(something that would be very hard if not impossible to do). One has to be really sick to accept that as good law. What it really is- Is defining deviancy downward. The legal system in this country has been on such a downward slide. We have now reached the point where innocence and guilt are determined by who you are. We see this in the financial crisis in a big way. If you are a politician or and important big banker then you are above the law and will not be punished by it. IF you are Murkosky or her cronies then you are above it to.
Finally there is this notion that all votes should count no matter what was done wrong because some voter would be disenfranchised. Well you may have the right to vote, but you do not have the right to have it counted if you do it wrong. You see if your vote is counted in a way that you did not intend to vote or if your vote is illegal and is counted then it disenfranchises someone else who did it right. In that case your vote should not be counted.
Funny thing is I saw part of this old Andy Griffith show the other day. I believe it was called “Barney runs for sheriff”. In that show one of them is going to run for election as a write in candidate. And they say that the public would have to be educated on how to spell their name because otherwise the votes would not count. Back then it was accepted as fact. And the people of the past had a TON more sense then people today. That policy was to ensure the fairness of the election. It was reasoned by looking at the whole picture, and who should be penalized for making a mistake. The voter who made the mistake, or the guy standing next to him that did it right. The liberals have truly twisted this country into a banana republic.
I just found that episode on YouTube. The pertinent part is at the end of the first part and beginning of the 2nd part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEoBiCydQ5E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqfWNROysYc&feature=related
"The Republicans don't have to let her in their caucus.The Republican Party not only helped her steal this from Miller and the citizens of Alaska, but from the beginning of this fiasco they have made it clear she will not lose any seniority and will be able to caucus with them."Fur shur she's not reliable enough a vote for the Republicans to tolerate her."
That pretty much says a lot about the elites good old boys in the GOP.
Thanks freedomwarrior998. No thanks, voters for Murkowski.
Not true. In the decision, the Court noted that write-ins for Miller were counted using the same standards as for Murky. Miller gained 20 votes. And the standards were the SAME as required in Federal law for counting the votes of military personnel submitting absentee ballots. [Citation in the decision.]
Another important part of the decision is that whatever Miller may object to, the burden is on him to show that it would change the election outcome. From the detailed counting tabulations that both sides agreed were accurate, the Court found that no matter if all of Miller’s challenges were accepted, he still would lose.
Contorted legal arguments and faulty reasoning yield to the actual numbers of votes.
The actual message sent by the Republican Party to the Conservatives [Tea Partiers] was go fornicate with yourself. We do not appreicate nor want you getting in our business. If you want to give us your money and support the candidate we select for you, fine. But other than that, stay your ass under the porch. Every two years we will call on you to support our candidate, until then, keep your mouth shut and stay out of our affairs,
You obviously did not read the court decision.
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2010/12/22/13/MillervTreadwell_decision.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
Where were they wrong in the law?
marking for reading later
1. His claims aren't baseless.
2. What if his money didn't run out?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.