[Walts Ice Pick]

I looked into that and found that justices on the Alaska Supreme Court do have to face the voters. After their appointment, their appointment has to be approved by the voters and, if approved by the voters, each has to win a retention election.

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.

[Postman]

Thanks for the info...We badly need something similar in the PRNJ and it is being worked up.

[Postman]

As I understand it, generally, Miller is arguing that rules are rules and should be applied evenly from election to election. They should not be changed by officials or judges to suit the preferred candidate.

In the PRNJ, after Torricelli’s past came out to bite him, the enemy party either dropped him or he withdrew after the deadline for naming a replacement(who remembers?) The putzes in black robes on the NJSC who have been interpretively legislating for the past several decades decided that the people needed to have a viable enemy candidate, despite clearly written law that, had it been enforced, would have kept Lautenberg in retirement. Thus, against a very weak Republican candidate and much machine chicanery,the Tporricelli-Lautenberg swap was allowed to stand and NJ voters subsequently gave another left wing enemy to the nation.(Again)