LISA MURKOWSKI

[lamboguy]

she ran a spirited write in campaign in alaska and supposedly won the senate seat. her election has been certified and she will be sworn in to office next week. her name is a tough name to spell for most including myself. if you took away the mispelled ballots she would not be in washington next week. the law states that you have to spell the name right for the vote to count. the courts interpreted it as voter intent. its the same as if you went to the racing office to claim a horse and mis-spelled the horses name, your claim would be automatically voided. that has probably happened over 100k different times in horses.
i have nothing against lisa murkowski or her campaign promises. what i do have a problem with is changing rules to fit the day. for her to be sworn in is unfair to all. when someone gets executed and later there is proof positive evidence that the person executed was innocent they say well that is only one case in a million, and for the good of the law it was righteous. when you live in a society that is bogged down with rules and laws, you must live with them whether you like them or not. the is a very bad precedent.

[Robert Goren]

One thing is clear, mis spelling or not the voters wanted her more than the other guy. In the end that should be whats counts.

[lamboguy]

when a guy drops a slip at the claim box he wants the horse. if he misspelled the name he doesn't get the horse no matter how much he wants it. what is so different in this case?

if one does not like the law, he should work to have it changed ahead of time and not rely on intent after the matter.

[Tom]

The challenge by the Tea Party guy was bogus at best.
He showed no class at all - good that he not serve, as Alaska would have undoubtedly not been his first priority.

As long as the spelling was obvious who the voter intended.....an the sheer number of write ins says a lot about the loser anyways.

[lamboguy]

whether a law makes sense or not, its a law. we have to obide by the laws here, other wise there are penalties. mindreading should have nothing to do with the law either. you might as well throw every law out the window and make things up as you go along.

[prospector]

whether a law makes sense or not, its a law. we have to obide by the laws here, other wise there are penalties. mindreading should have nothing to do with the law either. you might as well throw every law out the window and make things up as you go along.
:ThmbUp::ThmbUp:
and i don't care about miller...just the law..

[DRIVEWAY]

she ran a spirited write in campaign in alaska and supposedly won the senate seat. her election has been certified and she will be sworn in to office next week. her name is a tough name to spell for most including myself. if you took away the mispelled ballots she would not be in washington next week. the law states that you have to spell the name right for the vote to count. the courts interpreted it as voter intent. its the same as if you went to the racing office to claim a horse and mis-spelled the horses name, your claim would be automatically voided. that has probably happened over 100k different times in horses.
i have nothing against lisa murkowski or her campaign promises. what i do have a problem with is changing rules to fit the day. for her to be sworn in is unfair to all. when someone gets executed and later there is proof positive evidence that the person executed was innocent they say well that is only one case in a million, and for the good of the law it was righteous. when you live in a society that is bogged down with rules and laws, you must live with them whether you like them or not. the is a very bad precedent.

Someone can fill out the claim form and have an associate verify for accuracy. If misspelled thay can correct or fill out another form ensuring that it's correct.
Voting is different. An individual must remember the spelling and is all alone with no one to check accuracy. Voter intent is therefore an important part of the process. Those that count the votes are therefore put in the position to not only verify the spelling but responsibly determine voter intent. The Miller campaign challenged votes that were blurred but were spelled correctly.
The Supreme Court in Alaska unanimously upheld the use of voter intent. They blasted the arguments of Miller & co. in this regard.
I agree that the law should be changed but the election was fair and the intent of the voters was followed.

[lamboguy]

Someone can fill out the claim form and have an associate verify for accuracy. If misspelled thay can correct or fill out another form ensuring that it's correct.
Voting is different. An individual must remember the spelling and is all alone with no one to check accuracy. Voter intent is therefore an important part of the process. Those that count the votes are therefore put in the position to not only verify the spelling but responsibly determine voter intent. The Miller campaign challenged votes that were blurred but were spelled correctly.
The Supreme Court in Alaska unanimously upheld the use of voter intent. They blasted the arguments of Miller & co. in this regard.
I agree that the law should be changed but the election was fair and the intent of the voters was followed.
they can't change the spelling of the claim slip after the race

[Jay Trotter]

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, "the law is an ass, a idiot."
-- Charles Dickins

The right person is representing!

whether a law makes sense or not, its a law. we have to obide by the laws here, other wise there are penalties. mindreading should have nothing to do with the law either. you might as well throw every law out the window and make things up as you go along.

[DRIVEWAY]

they can't change the spelling of the claim slip after the race

And the votes have been counted, Joe Miller has had his day in court and the Governor of Alaska has certified the results and declared L. Murkowsky(oops)
Lisa Murcowsk(oops) Lisa Murkowski senator elect.

[lamboguy]

once the secretary of state certifies the result it stands. the same thing happened with the hanging chad incident in florida during the george bush election. the intent was there, but the vote could not be counted and i agreed with that ruling back then, and i didn't like junior to start out with. the same should hold true here and i have no opinion on the matter. i just see thisn as being inconsistant and nothing short of the law for the day, which i believe is wrong no matter what. that is the way i see it, i might be making to much of it, but i know that if i was on the wrong side of the deal, there would be no reprieve for me.

[DRIVEWAY]

once the secretary of state certifies the result it stands. the same thing happened with the hanging chad incident in florida during the george bush election. the intent was there, but the vote could not be counted and i agreed with that ruling back then, and i didn't like junior to start out with. the same should hold true here and i have no opinion on the matter. i just see thisn as being inconsistant and nothing short of the law for the day, which i believe is wrong no matter what. that is the way i see it, i might be making to much of it, but i know that if i was on the wrong side of the deal, there would be no reprieve for me.

And so it is that you should have the last word.

[Saratoga_Mike]

whether a law makes sense or not, its a law. we have to obide by the laws here, other wise there are penalties. mindreading should have nothing to do with the law either. you might as well throw every law out the window and make things up as you go along.

I'm with you Lambo, and I like your claim analogy. I missed out on one last yr because my trainer spelled the horse's name wrong on the claim slip (I was not happy, to say the least). But I guess claiming horses is taken more seriously than voting for a US Senator. I certainly don't want someone divining voter intent. I didn't want it in 2000 ("well they meant to vote for Gore"), and I don't want it now.

[ArlJim78]

Business as usual, the rules must be bent in order for the pork to flow.
Long live the Murkowski dynasty!

[boxcar]

One thing is clear, mis spelling or not the voters wanted her more than the other guy. In the end that should be whats counts.

Classic. Classic! The Ends Justify the Means! Forget what the law says. Let's violate it because the results are what we wanted.

In the end, Robert, the law should have been obeyed. And I guarantee that if the shoe had been on the other foot and the Republican had received all those misspelled write-ins, the law would have been strictly obeyed. I would have staked my life on that because most libs are hypocrites. The percentages would have been on my side.

Boxcar

[lsbets]

The result of the election was clear - Miller lost by a fairly large margin and showed nothing but contempt for the voters of Alaska. He is a classless fool and his behavior has shown that given their choices the people of Alaska made the right choice.

[lamboguy]

Classic. Classic! The Ends Justify the Means! Forget what the law says. Let's violate it because the results are what we wanted.

In the end, Robert, the law should have been obeyed. And I guarantee that if the shoe had been on the other foot and the Republican had received all those misspelled write-ins, the law would have been strictly obeyed. I would have staked my life on that because most libs are hypocrites. The percentages would have been on my side.

Boxcari think you are a little mistaken here boxman, the candidates in question were both consevetive republican's. i know in your mind every thing that is wrong has a liberal behind it. this is just a what is fair issue.

[ArlJim78]

Murkowski never was a conservative and is no longer a Republican.

[lsbets]

Murkowski never was a conservative and is no longer a Republican.

Jim, you sounds like the KOS guys when they talk about Lieberman.

[Jay Trotter]

Classic. Classic! The Ends Justify the Means! Forget what the law says. Let's violate it because the results are what we wanted.

In the end, Robert, the law should have been obeyed. And I guarantee that if the shoe had been on the other foot and the Republican had received all those misspelled write-ins, the law would have been strictly obeyed. I would have staked my life on that because most libs are hypocrites. The percentages would have been on my side.

Boxcar

Are you inferring a vast left wing conspiracy here? On what basis? Geez, the lady had to overcome the write-in obstacle and you still won't acknowledge her victory. Perhaps, your dismay should be directed at the "weak" Republican candidate! :bang:

[ArlJim78]

Jim, you sounds like the KOS guys when they talk about Lieberman.
I don't know what the KOS guys sound like, I only know that what I said is true. I look for more than simply an R after the persons name.

[GameTheory]

There is a point here. Yes, the voters intended to elect Murkowski. But if the law was followed they would have gotten Miller, a bad consequence of following the law. (Don't object here, see below.) THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN -- a bad law should have a bad consequence so people will be motivated to change the law. If we just ignore the laws when they cause something we don't like instead of actually getting rid of the law, then what is the point and purpose of law (in general) exactly? You can't just cavalierly ignore the foundations of society just so Murkowski can have her seat. There are consequences to that too.

Now, Miller did get his day in court, yadda yadda, so I'm just using this case as an example and not taking a hard stance on this particular instance. (So no need for that retort, please.) I really don't know the particulars.

But, you get my point anyway. And I do think that the point above about "what if this had been reversed" is a good one -- we see double-standards applied all the time with the same people making the exact opposite argument they made the time before when it was the other way around. (See George Bush vs any democrat applying the same policy -- it is always evil when GB does it and sensible when a dem does it.) Another reason we should follow the law. Don't like it -- change the law.

[Robert Goren]

Murkowski never was a conservative and is no longer a Republican.She may or may not be a conservative, but is not a liberal(I know because I am one) and she will caucus with the republicians.

[bigmack]

She may or may not be a conservative, but is not a liberal(I know because I am one) and she will caucus with the republicians.
Do tell.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/murkow.png

[lamboguy]

lisa murkowski was a minority leader in the senate appointed by a republican, she ran as a republican. her political views are pro-life, death penalties, bible study, tax-cutting. i see nothing liberal in her or non republican representation. am i missing something here?

[Saratoga_Mike]

lisa murkowski was a minority leader in the senate appointed by a republican, she ran as a republican. her political views are pro-life, death penalties, bible study, tax-cutting. i see nothing liberal in her or non republican representation. am i missing something here?

She's just to the right of a Maine Republican. She isn't pro-life and being from Alaska she loves federal largesse.

[Robert Goren]

She is a pro choice moderate republician. A rhino to the tea partiers.

[boxcar]

Someone can fill out the claim form and have an associate verify for accuracy. If misspelled thay can correct or fill out another form ensuring that it's correct.
Voting is different. An individual must remember the spelling and is all alone with no one to check accuracy. Voter intent is therefore an important part of the process. Those that count the votes are therefore put in the position to not only verify the spelling but responsibly determine voter intent. The Miller campaign challenged votes that were blurred but were spelled correctly.
The Supreme Court in Alaska unanimously upheld the use of voter intent. They blasted the arguments of Miller & co. in this regard.
I agree that the law should be changed but the election was fair and the intent of the voters was followed.

Two Things: This case is an excellent example of an activist court legislating from the bench. And in order to circumvent the law, they simply disregarded it completely. Why have laws when courts can essentially overturn them through their whimsical interpretations? Or why have laws when a government won't enforce them?

Secondly, voting is the most fundamentally important civic responsibility and privilege an American citizen has in this free country. Therefore, voters should take this responsibility very seriously and understand exactly what they're doing at the voting places. The gravity of this civic duty demands this kind of attention to details.

And while "mere" misspellings might seem trivial, I can think of plenty of instances where a misspelled name -- let's say on some kind of legal document or application or form would be enough to have these kinds of documented rejected.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

lisa murkowski was a minority leader in the senate appointed by a republican, she ran as a republican. her political views are pro-life, death penalties, bible study, tax-cutting. i see nothing liberal in her or non republican representation. am i missing something here?

See Big Mack's post above.

Also, she's a RINO. Plain and simple. And that's why Republicans in the primary rejected her by a pretty fair margin, I believe. But being the career-establishment politician she aspires to be, she didn't let that faze her. So, she ran as an Independent. But she will prove to be more of an Obamanot than not. Mark my words.

Boxcar

[TJDave]

Means different things to different people in different places.


Here's what it means to be a republican in Texas:

http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf

[ArlJim78]

Murkowski has one of the lowest conservative ratings amongst Republicans. I think only the two from Maine rank lower. If you want business as usual from congress, bigger government, bringing the pork home, then she's a good choice.

she was originally appointed to the Senate by her father.

she recently was one of only a few Republicans to vote for the Dream act. (near treason imo)
she voted for S-Chip
she voted for the new food bill
she has stood up to Republicans who wanted to ban earmarks.

etc.

[lamboguy]

why would anyone bother or care to rank republican or democratic senators for how conservetive they are, bottom line they all pick your pockets from wherever they come from or what they say or what they claim to be for. this thread just proves it to me, no way in life does this gal deserve to be a senator today, yet her family must have plenty of influence to get the job done with the guys that sit on those legal benches.

[Robert Goren]

why would anyone bother or care to rank republican or democratic senators for how conservetive they are, bottom line they all pick your pockets from wherever they come from or what they say or what they claim to be for. this thread just proves it to me, no way in life does this gal deserve to be a senator today, yet her family must have plenty of influence to get the job done with the guys that sit on those legal benches.The guy she ran against thought the Berlin Wall was to keep people out not people in. Even Alaskans won't elected someone that dumb.

[TJDave]

The guy she ran against thought the Berlin Wall was to keep people out not people in. Even Alaskans won't elected someone that dumb.


I've got friends in Alaska. The way I heard it told was that this was blow back against Palin. On balance, Alaskans liked Murkowski and didn't appreciate how she was railroaded in the primary.

[Valuist]

In Illinois we had a guy running for office who's name was Rich Whitney. Somehow, his name was misspelled on the ballot. What did it say? Rich Whitey.

Was kind of funny but not to him.

[Tom]

In Illinois we had a guy running for office who's name was Rich Whitney. Somehow, his name was misspelled on the ballot. What did it say? Rich Whitey.

Was kind of funny but not to him.

:lol::lol::lol:

[ElKabong]

The challenge by the Tea Party guy was bogus at best.
He showed no class at all - good that he not serve, as Alaska would have undoubtedly not been his first priority.

As long as the spelling was obvious who the voter intended.....an the sheer number of write ins says a lot about the loser anyways.

Tom hit the nail on the head, imo.

[boxcar]

Tom hit the nail on the head, imo.

Only for those people who are scofflaws and don't want to abide by the rule of law.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Spirit of the law is more like it.

[boxcar]

Spirit of the law is more like it.

If it was the intent of the legislators to go by the "spirit" rather than the "letter", could they not have expressed that in the law? Could they not have written a more flexible law essentially stating that the polling authorities or the Secretary of the State would be permitted to judge or discern the intent of the voters' ballots?

Boxcar

[Tom]

The intent of the legislators was either wrong or not communicated properly.
Clearly, the will of the people was not served in this case.
That trumps intent. We have courts because the laws are NOT the be all end all. We have to serve justice, which laws alone do not do.

Remember Rosa Parks?
Think the intent of those legislators was clear?

[boxcar]

The intent of the legislators was either wrong or not communicated properly.
Clearly, the will of the people was not served in this case.
That trumps intent. We have courts because the laws are NOT the be all end all. We have to serve justice, which laws alone do not do.

Remember Rosa Parks?
Think the intent of those legislators was clear?

Whether it was wrong or not clearly communicated is besides the point. It is not the court's role to rewrite law. The court's singular purpose is to interpret the law as written. If either was wrong (and that's assuming a lot), then it's up to The People to get their elected representatives to change the law. This is what "separation of powers" is all about. As it is ,the courts have abused this separation by all too often crossing the line between interpreting law and rewriting it.

Further, I suspect that since the law called for "exact spelling", the intent behind that was to close loopholes that would or could allow for abuses and corruption to seep into the judgment process when judging "voters' intentions". In order to close that loophole that could be exploited by corrupt or unscrupulous people, the legislators wisely demanded perfect spelling. (Geesh, on second thought since so many in our society today are functionally illiterate maybe that was far too heavy of a burden to place upon the common man.)

And finally, the court's ruling greatly diminishes the value of the voting privilege by diminishing the great and sobering responsibilities that should attend that privilege. There are some important things in life, Tom, that one must get right!

Boxcar

[Tom]

The number of write in votes clearly say that the will of the people was that the jerk NOT get elected.

You really think Mirkowski instead of Murkowski is important?

[boxcar]

The number of write in votes clearly say that the will of the people was that the jerk NOT get elected.

You really think Mirkowski instead of Murkowski is important?

Tom, sometimes you can be obtuse. It's not a question of what I think is important. The much, much, much, much larger and more important question has to do with the rule of law and the designated legal roles of the branches of government. The legislators obviously thought the differences were important enough to demand accurate spelling. The judge overruled the legislators with some touchy-feely, visceral-oriented, empathy-based ruling that was supposed to resemble true justice. :rolleyes: The judge, instead, should have ruled on the law on the basis of what was written and not how he thought it should have been written. If you cannot see this, then so be it.

Boxcar

[TJDave]

Further, I suspect that since the law called for "exact spelling", the intent behind that was to close loopholes that would or could allow for abuses and corruption to seep into the judgment process when judging "voters' intentions". In order to close that loophole that could be exploited by corrupt or unscrupulous people, the legislators wisely demanded perfect spelling.

Can I find the Alaska election law that calls for "exact or perfect spelling"?

[boxcar]

Can I find the Alaska election law that calls for "exact or perfect spelling"?

I'm sure if you look for it, you'll find the law somewhere. According to what I heard from various pundits on the radio, the law clearly allowed for write-ins, but the voters had to get the spelling of their write-ins correct. Miller said on the radio, too, that this is why he was challenging the outcome because so many of the ballots were misspelled.

Now, whether or not this is the actual law, I don't know. But it would make sense to have a law with this kind of specific requirement in it for the reason I stated earlier in this thread. It seems to me that if the voters really wanted their votes to count -- to matter -- then they should have taken the time and made a little effort to get this very simple, straightforward requirement right. After all, this isn't rocket surgery. :D

Boxcar
P.S. A very cursory search turned up this:

The law calls for write-in ballots to have the oval filled in and either the candidate's last name or the name as it appears on their declaration of candidacy scrawled in — in this case, either "Murkowski" or "Lisa Murkowski." (emphasis mine)

But the state is using discretion to discern voter intent, pointing to prior case law as their basis in doing so. State Division of Elections director Gail Fenumiai, the final arbiter of what's in or out during the counting process, said if the name is phonetic to Murkowski or there are minor misspellings, she's counting it for Murkowski. It's an effort aimed at not disenfranchising any voters.

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2010/11/12/news/politics/srv0000009938631.txt

Also, if there was indeed prior case law in this matter, Miller was beating a dead horse.

[ElKabong]

The people of Alaska wanted Murkowski. They get what they want.

Once Alaskans got a dose of Miller, it was like they were seeing an Alfranken of sorts. Dude's a bad joke. They thought better of it, so he's out. She's in.

Deal with it.

[ArlJim78]

The people of Alaska wanted Murkowski. They get what they want.

Once Alaskans got a dose of Miller, it was like they were seeing an Alfranken of sorts. Dude's a bad joke. They thought better of it, so he's out. She's in.

Deal with it.
what specifically was wrong with Miller to make him comparable to Al Franken, a bad joke?

[ArlJim78]

some quotes I lifted from Miller's website;


I will work to limit Washington to the constitutional powers anticipated by our Founders.

The only answer is to return our federal government to the limits prescribed by our Constitution. Federal powers not specified in the Constitution are reserved to the States by the 10th Amendment.

I support the repeal of ObamaCare. First and foremost, there is no Constitutional authority for it.

I strongly oppose the unconstitutional Cap and Trade legislation.

In an age of terrorism, it is imperative that we project strength. A strong Defense Department is the best deterrent of aggression.

It is time to reform our system of taxation to make it more simple and fair. We must address taxation on every level. Our corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world, stifling economic growth and development; capital gains taxes punish those who invest, driving capital out of private business investment markets; death taxes divest the prudent of their children’s inheritance; and personal income tax rates make it increasingly difficult for hard-working Americans to provide for their own and still get ahead. The failures of the current system are clear.

I will be a catalyst to move those in Congress to make the tough, principled decisions needed to bring Washington back to the limited role anticipated by our Founders.

yeah, what a nutcase. :rolleyes:

special interests rallied to Murky's defense, and maintained the status quo, just like they did in Nevada for Reid. the only joke is that we keep sending the same people back to Washington.

[boxcar]

some quotes I lifted from Miller's website;


yeah, what a nutcase. :rolleyes:

special interests rallied to Murky's defense, and maintained the status quo, just like they did in Nevada for Reid. the only joke is that we keep sending the same people back to Washington.

I heard Miller speak a few time on the radio. He didn't exactly sound like an escaped asylum lunatic, so I don't know what people's problems are with him. Maybe we have some conservatives on this forum slowly sipping some kool-aid and flipping on us? :D

Boxcar

[Tom]

No, we have some conservatives who are willing to listen to the voice of the voters even when it doesn't go our way.

[lamboguy]

the supreme court rightfully did not allow hanging chads in the 2000 election. why should lisa merkowski be the senator based on voter intent?

if these people don't know how to spell her name she should not be in the senate. this was a bag job. never mind political viewpoints and who you think is better for the job.

[boxcar]

No, we have some conservatives who are willing to listen to the voice of the voters even when it doesn't go our way.

The intentions of the voters are of secondary importance to the more fundamental issues, which is the rule of law and separation of powers. Systematically ignoring the rule of law (assuming the letter of the law required correct spelling) will eventually lead us to become a nation of anarchists. No single election outcome is more important than meticulously avoiding this trend. Constantly making excuses for not adhering to the rule of law is the sure-fire way to bring this constitutional republic to an ignominious end. Those who believe that the ends justifies the means will one day find out that they will get an end for which they did not bargain. Moral Relativism ain't what it's cracked up to be.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

the supreme court rightfully did not allow hanging chads in the 2000 election. why should lisa merkowski be the senator based on voter intent?

if these people don't know how to spell her name she should not be in the senate. this was a bag job. never mind political viewpoints and who you think is better for the job.

Some of us get it. Good to see that you do. :ThmbUp:

Sadly, Mental Myopia crosses all political lines and prohibits people from seeing the bigger picture and, therefore, the more fundamental issues involved.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Can I find the Alaska election law that calls for "exact or perfect spelling"?

Alaska Statutes - Chapter 15.15.: ELECTIONS AND BALLOTS

Alaska Stat. § 15.15.360. : Alaska Statutes - Section 15.15.360.: Rules for counting ballots.

(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.

(b) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.

[boxcar]

Alaska Statutes - Chapter 15.15.: ELECTIONS AND BALLOTS

Alaska Stat. § 15.15.360. : Alaska Statutes - Section 15.15.360.: Rules for counting ballots.

(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.

(b) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.

Thank you for taking the time to research this, Mike.

It's very obvious that at least one court took huge exception with "b" part. So, this all confirms what I stated very early on in this thread. This case represents an excellent example of an activist court crossing over from the judiciary realm over into the legislative sphere so that it could rewrite the law in a manner consistent with its own personal views or political agenda. Plain and simple.

It's no wonder Miller fought this. But how stupid could he have been to think that the law was on his side? He should have considered jurist factor. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Thank you for taking the time to research this, Mike.

It's very obvious that at least one court took huge exception with "b" part. So, this all confirms what I stated very early on in this thread. This case represents an excellent example of an activist court crossing over from the judiciary realm over into the legislative sphere so that it could rewrite the law in a manner consistent with its own personal views or political agenda. Plain and simple.

It's no wonder Miller fought this. But how stupid could he have been to think that the law was on his side? He should have considered jurist factor. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I think Alaskan case law was on MorCowsky's (sic) side, but that doesn't mean the case law was correct.

[boxcar]

I think Alaskan case law was on MorCowsky's (sic) side, but that doesn't mean the case law was correct.

How could it be? I mean...the statute could not have been written more clearly or succinctly than if I had written it. :D

The intent of the lawmakers was crystal clear. And again...I can understand and appreciate why they wrote the law the way they did. They tried to take preventive measures to protect the write-in process from discretionary abuses. Sadly, though, there is nothing any lawmaker can do to protect the law or its intent from judicial abuse. Our land is brimming and teeming with unrighteous judges.

Boxcar

[Tom]

I submit that the requirement to correctly spell the name implies a literacy test, which has already been declared unconstitutional by the SC.

[lamboguy]

I submit that the requirement to correctly spell the name implies a literacy test, which has already been declared unconstitutional by the SC.
you are the best!!!

lol

[boxcar]

I submit that the requirement to correctly spell the name implies a literacy test, which has already been declared unconstitutional by the SC.

Of course. Such a burden upon voters is mean-spirited, discriminatory and cruel and unusual punishment to boot. :rolleyes: (And, yes, I know about the SC decisions that formed the basis to their stupid judgments.)

Moreover, the voters were equally inept at procuring a copy of the correct spelling to take to the polling places with them? Or were they just too lazy?

Of course, one is led to wonder how the SC determined that being literate was unconstitutional. But I also take it that these same dimwits who misspelled her name were literate enough to pass driving tests? They were literate enough to complete applications for their licenses? :rolleyes: Or is it that for the driving privilege they can get things right, whereas for the more important privilege they can't?

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

How could it be? I mean...the statute could not have been written more clearly or succinctly than if I had written it. :D

The intent of the lawmakers was crystal clear. And again...I can understand and appreciate why they wrote the law the way they did. They tried to take preventive measures to protect the write-in process from discretionary abuses. Sadly, though, there is nothing any lawmaker can do to protect the law or its intent from judicial abuse. Our land is brimming and teeming with unrighteous judges.

Boxcar

The intent of the lawmakers was to ensure the status quo of the two party system. Make it almost impossible for a write-in candidate - how dare they challenge the status quo.

As for the votes, Mr.Miller challenged votes that were blurred by handling but clearly spelled correctly to have enough votes to overturn the margin held by Murkowski.

One of the challenged votes was Lisa Murkowski Republican.
Technically Miller & friends were right.

There was no judicial abuse in this case.

[boxcar]

The intent of the lawmakers was to ensure the status quo of the two party system. Make it almost impossible for a write-in candidate - how dare they challenge the status quo.

Wow! You surely have lowered the bar for the exceedingly difficult (i.e. "almost impossible"), since the only requirement was to get the spelling of a person's name correct. I guess to you and others here, this simple requirement was tantamount to requiring voters to recite War and Peace verbatim? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

There was no judicial abuse in this case.

But if the court had stuck with letter of the law and its intent and ruled in Miller's favor, you surely would have accused the court of abuse, right?

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

The law is very clear. For a write-in vote to count, the candidate's name needs to appear as it does on the candidate's declaration form. In addition, if you read Alaskan law pertaining to the voting process, which I have, you won't find any prohibition against simply writing the name of your desired candidate on a piece of paper before entering the voting zone, and then simply transcribing it onto the ballot correctly. However, Alaskan law does prohibit the use of stickers (that could be placed on the blank write-in ballot) from being used.

[newtothegame]

Its cear (at least to me) that the voters wanted Murkowsky (sp).....But, this is not about what they wanted (intent). The state law is clear! The voter had to CORRECTLY spell her name.
Murkosky and Miller both knew the law. Why wouldnt Murkowsky put out ads showing the importance of spelling?
The law, right or wrong, is the law UNTIL it is rewritten.
Yes, I know courts try to interpret "intent" in voter cases. But in those cases where voter intent is to be determined, there is NO law such as the one in alaska. I would also go one step further and say the specific reason this law was written was there was something simliar some fifty years ago in Alaska and the people wanted to ensure the law was clear.
Law was clear...court over ruled the law!
For me, this is not about Miller or Murkowsky......its about LAW.
If we allow courts to just bend and break the law as they see fit....whats next???
Constitutionality........!!!!!!
Based on some of the peoples reposnes here......might as well just toss that document. It means nothing! :bang:

[Saratoga_Mike]

Its cear (at least to me) that the voters wanted Murkowsky (sp).....But, this is not about what they wanted (intent). The state law is clear! The voter had to CORRECTLY spell her name.
Murkosky and Miller both knew the law. Why wouldnt Murkowsky put out ads showing the importance of spelling? :

She did - her son was even sporting a t-shirt the week b/f the election with Mur-Kow-Sky on it.

[newtothegame]

She did - her son was even sporting a t-shirt the week b/f the election with Mur-Kow-Sky on it.

Then I believe the court had an OBLIGATION to uphold the law.....
With or without the tee shirt lol

[Saratoga_Mike]

Then I believe the court had an OBLIGATION to uphold the law.....
With or without the tee shirt lol

I agree with you

[boxcar]

I agree with you

What!? You agree with a conservative? Maybe the world is going to end come this May, as some delusional professing Christians believe! :lol: :lol:

Geesh, if you lived close by I'd celebrate this occasion by buying you a beer -- a real beer. :D

Boxcar
P.S. The other night I tried a Yuengling for the first time. Pretty good brew. :)

[Saratoga_Mike]

What!? You agree with a conservative? Maybe the world is going to end come this May, as some delusional professing Christians believe! :lol: :lol:

Geesh, if you lived close by I'd celebrate this occasion by buying you a beer -- a real beer. :D

Boxcar
P.S. The other night I tried a Yuengling for the first time. Pretty good brew. :)

You misconstrue my politics. I merely try to bolster your opinions with facts, yet you fight me. Yuengling (is that the correct spelling? I have no idea) tastes too much like a real beer for me. I think one equals two or three Miller Lites.

[boxcar]

You misconstrue my politics. I merely try to bolster your opinions with facts, yet you fight me. Yuengling (is that the correct spelling? I have no idea) tastes too much like a real beer for me. I think one equals two or three Miller Lites.

Oh...yeah...Yuengling is the kind of stuff that'll put hair on your chest. (Not so sure about the head, though.) :D

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

what specifically was wrong with Miller to make him comparable to Al Franken, a bad joke?

--having his security guards handcuff a reporter for asking questions not to his liking...

--not stepping aside like a man, when he KNOWS the people of Alaska didn't vote him in.....

By fighting this, he looks like a schmuck that is hellbent on winning even tho the electorate doesn't want him. That's franken-esque enuff for me. The guy is a putz, he isn't the people's choice. He needs to sack up, be a man, and get out of sight. He's the turd in the punchbowl, the guy at the party that no one wants to talk to.....Take the f'n queue Miller, and move along.

As someone who can relate to the tea party movement, I want leaders in the party...not slimeballs that try to weasel in on technicalities. That's reserved for the Frankens and Gores of the world

[Saratoga_Mike]

--having his security guards handcuff a reporter for asking questions not to his liking...

--not stepping aside like a man, when he KNOWS the people of Alaska didn't vote him in.....

By fighting this, he looks like a schmuck that is hellbent on winning even tho the electorate doesn't want him. That's franken-esque enuff for me. The guy is a putz, he isn't the people's choice. He needs to sack up, be a man, and get out of sight. He's the turd in the punchbowl, the guy at the party that no one wants to talk to.....Take the f'n queue Miller, and move along.

As someone who can relate to the tea party movement, I want leaders in the party...not slimeballs that try to weasel in on technicalities. That's reserved for the Frankens and Gores of the world

Since when is the law, which in this case could not be anymore clear, a technicality?

[newtothegame]

--having his security guards handcuff a reporter for asking questions not to his liking...

--not stepping aside like a man, when he KNOWS the people of Alaska didn't vote him in.....

By fighting this, he looks like a schmuck that is hellbent on winning even tho the electorate doesn't want him. That's franken-esque enuff for me. The guy is a putz, he isn't the people's choice. He needs to sack up, be a man, and get out of sight. He's the turd in the punchbowl, the guy at the party that no one wants to talk to.....Take the f'n queue Miller, and move along.

As someone who can relate to the tea party movement, I want leaders in the party...not slimeballs that try to weasel in on technicalities. That's reserved for the Frankens and Gores of the world

Elk...as I mentioned in an earlier post, I really could care less about Miller or Murkowsky......
But, I am amazed you think a LAW is a technicality?????
Why do we have any laws at all....if one is a technicality, arent they all technicalities? Or is it just this one??

[ArlJim78]

--having his security guards handcuff a reporter for asking questions not to his liking...

--not stepping aside like a man, when he KNOWS the people of Alaska didn't vote him in.....

By fighting this, he looks like a schmuck that is hellbent on winning even tho the electorate doesn't want him. That's franken-esque enuff for me. The guy is a putz, he isn't the people's choice. He needs to sack up, be a man, and get out of sight. He's the turd in the punchbowl, the guy at the party that no one wants to talk to.....Take the f'n queue Miller, and move along.

As someone who can relate to the tea party movement, I want leaders in the party...not slimeballs that try to weasel in on technicalities. That's reserved for the Frankens and Gores of the world
someone was handcuffed at one of his events, someone that was trying to make a scene. the accounts of what happened vary, there were no charges filed, nobody was hurt, and there is no evidence that I'm aware of that it was Miller who ordered the handcuffing.

and to your other point, I just think you are way off the mark. expecting the law to be followed does not make you a slimeball or a schmuck or a turd. he challenged the result based on the law, not a technicality. he lost so he stepped aside. again, who was harmed by that other than himself perhaps financially? its alarming that a guy merely wanting the votes counted according to the law is viewed with such disdain. Immediately throwing in the towel would have shown him to be a quitter, someone not willing to fight. correct?

to reiterate my earlier point, I would take a so-called "schmuck" like Miller any day of the week before I would an aristocratic, big spending politician.

[Robert Goren]

someone was handcuffed at one of his events, someone that was trying to make a scene. the accounts of what happened vary, there were no charges filed, nobody was hurt, and there is no evidence that I'm aware of that it was Miller who ordered the handcuffing.

and to your other point, I just think you are way off the mark. expecting the law to be followed does not make you a slimeball or a schmuck or a turd. he challenged the result based on the law, not a technicality. he lost so he stepped aside. again, who was harmed by that other than himself perhaps financially? its alarming that a guy merely wanting the votes counted according to the law is viewed with such disdain. Immediately throwing in the towel would have shown him to be a quitter, someone not willing to fight. correct?

to reiterate my earlier point, I would take a so-called "schmuck" like Miller any day of the week before I would an aristocratic, big spending politician.So you want someone to be a senator was thinks that the Berlin Wall was used to keep people out instead keeping people in. It sounds to me like he believes the Communist propaganda.

[boxcar]

Since when is the law, which in this case could not be anymore clear, a technicality?

:ThmbUp: Good question, Mike! Sounds like one I would ask. :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

So you want someone to be a senator was thinks that the Berlin Wall was used to keep people out instead keeping people in. It sounds to me like he believes the Communist propaganda.

Hey...we got a president, presumably the most powerful man in the free world, who thinks there are 57 states. And he didn't know that KY borders on his home state of Illinois. Neither did he know how to correctly pronounce "corpsman". Nor did he know that we didn't liberate Auschwitz etc., etc. I'd say that Miller looks brilliant next to BO -- if we're counting bloopers or gaffes.
:rolleyes:

Here'a a link to video with a few of those "etcs., etcs." :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxXh6ZWfbDg

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Hey...we got a president, presumably the most powerful man in the free world, who thinks there are 57 states. And he didn't know that KY borders on his home state of Illinois. Neither did he know how to correctly pronounce "corpsman". Nor did he know that we didn't liberate Auschwitz etc., etc. I'd say that Miller looks brilliant next to BO -- if we're counting bloopers or gaffes.
:rolleyes:

Here'a a link to video with a few of those "etcs., etcs." :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxXh6ZWfbDg

BoxcarI know a guy who was a corpsman in Veitnam and he doesn't know how to pronounce it either.

[boxcar]

I know a guy who was a corpsman in Veitnam and he doesn't know how to pronounce it either.

But I see that he didn't make it to the White House, right?

Watch the vid. It's a riot. (Obama, btw, actually thought there were 60 states. Listen carefully.)

In all seriousness, I can understand why BO keeps his college records under lock and key. I'd bet that those records would not flatter him.

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

to all you fellas that are sticking to the law vs the will of the people....the will of the people is going to win. It did in this instance too.

Everybody has to deal with it. If Murkowski doesn't do her job in a manner Alaskans wish, she'll have to answer to them. She's no favorite of mine, but I don't live in AK. I thought it was 2 shitty choices...They can take care of their own business up there.

We're going to agree to disagree...Miller is going to have to take his defeat and deal with it. The world turns on.

[ElKabong]

Since when is the law, which in this case could not be anymore clear, a technicality?

Answer: The moment Murkowski is sworn back in.

Doesn't please me any more than it does you, but it's called reality and it can be a bitch. Let's focus on better leadership from the TP from here on. That's what I'm going to do, anyway

[Stillriledup]

I'm with Lambo, you can't make up laws as you go along.

OUST MURKOWSK!

[boxcar]

to all you fellas that are sticking to the law vs the will of the people....the will of the people is going to win. It did in this instance too.

There are plenty of instances when the "will of the people" were trampled on by the courts and even legislatures. But be that as it may...remember your words if this country ever goes down the path of anarchy. Will you, then, be cheerleading the anarchists from the sidelines and chalk up the historical moment to the sacred, albeit lawless, will of the people? If the "will of the people" is so sacred and inviolate, one is led to wonder why the founders didn't establish a pure Democracy instead of a Representative Constitutional Republic.

And to those of you who think the Almighty Will of the People should reign supreme no matter what, you might want to seriously ponder why all the nations on the earth have laws in the first place. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

There are plenty of instances when the "will of the people" were trampled on by the courts and even legislatures. But be that as it may...remember your words if this country ever goes down the path of anarchy. Will you, then, be cheerleading the anarchists from the sidelines and chalk up the historical moment to the sacred, albeit lawless, will of the people? If the "will of the people" is so sacred and inviolate, one is led to wonder why the founders didn't establish a pure Democracy instead of a Representative Constitutional Republic.

And to those of you who think the Almighty Will of the People should reign supreme no matter what, you might want to seriously ponder why all the nations on the earth have laws in the first place. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

Yeah, i fear that stuff every moment.........

nah, not really. I'll let the worrywarts turdwrestle over that nonsense.

[bigmack]

It was to be expected. Out of the gun we'd end up with the likes of Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle & Joe Miller. Underqualified & lousy candidates, the trio.

While no fan of Miller, the fact remains that it is the law and any ruling outside the law makes a mockery of that law.

Not an argument in here can obfuscate from that fact.

[Tom]

Miller could appeal Beistline's decision, lodge a formal contest of the election results in state court or give up.

http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2011/01/02/131036-murkowski-certified-winner-alaska-senate-race.htm

Nice thing about America - you always have your options.

[ElKabong]

mack,

if the AK election were a 3rd grade spelling test, then miller won.....if it were an excercise in who the people wanted to serve them, then murkowski won.

thank goodness the election wasn't decided on by 3rd grade hall monitors...grown ups realized what the people wished for, game over.

[TJDave]

I'm with Lambo, you can't make up laws as you go along.

OUST MURKOWSK!

Why?

You assume she won because of some "liberal" interpretation of voter law...That intent mattered over technicality?

Wrong.

Unchallenged, legally cast, correctly spelled and marked ballots beat Miller straight up. Miller-90,839...........Murkowsky-92,931

Here are the links:

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/10GENR/data/results.pdf

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/10GENR/data/resultsWI.pdf

[ElKabong]

http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2011/01/02/131036-murkowski-certified-winner-alaska-senate-race.htm

Nice thing about America - you always have your options.

from the link...

Last week, the state Supreme Court, in an at–times strongly worded 4–0 opinion, called voter intent "paramount" and upheld a lower court decision that refused to overturn election results favoring Murkowski.

[ArlJim78]

It was to be expected. Out of the gun we'd end up with the likes of Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle & Joe Miller. Underqualified
all three stand head and shoulders above the dinosaurs they ran against. What exactly qualifies Harry Reid? or Mike Castle, or Frank Murkowski's daughter?

[newtothegame]

mack,

if the AK election were a 3rd grade spelling test, then miller won.....if it were an excercise in who the people wanted to serve them, then murkowski won.

thank goodness the election wasn't decided on by 3rd grade hall monitors...grown ups realized what the people wished for, game over.

Elk...you continue to avoid the SERIOUS questions this election raises......
Again, its not about Miller or Murkowski......it's about the letter of the law.
The law is clear here...not at all vague.

It's not about what the voters "intent" was.....

The courts have found that voter intent is Paramount and that's why they upheld her election victory. Good for them..But, all they did was CIRCUMVENT THE LAW!

Next thing you know, the government will side step , or use their own "intent" to determine as they wish on such things as manadating insurance.....
telling us whether or not we can eat happy meals....
whether or not we can have salt with our food......
whether or not we can have sugary drinks.....
Ohhhh wait...they already did those too...my apologies! :bang:

[newtothegame]

from the link...

Last week, the state Supreme Court, in an at–times strongly worded 4–0 opinion, called voter intent "paramount" and upheld a lower court decision that refused to overturn election results favoring Murkowski.

You left out this part ELK.....
"The state allowed for ballots with misspellings to be counted toward Murkowski's total, with the director of the state Division of Elections, in consultation with state attorneys, using discretion to determine voter intent."

[bigmack]

all three stand head and shoulders above the dinosaurs they ran against. What exactly qualifies Harry Reid? or Mike Castle, or Frank Murkowski's daughter?
Saying they were underqualified doesn't make their opponents any more qualified. We both know incumbents win by an astounding percentage. If change is what folk want they need to find candidates that have more horse sense than want to fill an office with the first body that comes along.

[ArlJim78]

Saying they were underqualified doesn't make their opponents any more qualified. We both know incumbents win by an astounding percentage. If change is what folk want they need to find candidates that have more horse sense than want to fill an office with the first body that comes along.
For me those folks did have more horse sense than the incumbents. I'm speaking relatively. I'm not saying they we're the greatest possible candidate, all I'm comparing them to is their opponents.

honestly, if you were a resident of Nevada last year, would you have voted for Reid over Angle?

[Robert Goren]

For me those folks did have more horse sense than the incumbents. I'm speaking relatively. I'm not saying they we're the greatest possible candidate, all I'm comparing them to is their opponents.

honestly, if you were a resident of Nevada last year, would you have voted for Reid over Angle?Yes, in fact, I would be hard pressed to find someone I wouldn't vote for over Angle. Miller? I would certainly vote for O'Donnell over Angle.

[boxcar]

Yeah, i fear that stuff every moment.........

nah, not really. I'll let the worrywarts turdwrestle over that nonsense.

You should "fear" it. It's not apparent to you that both the government and the more and more people are turning a blind eye to laws?

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

My point is that all the talk about qualifications and experience are a smokescreen and don't interest me as much a few fundamental core issues, NO to new taxes and regulations, YES to spending cuts, NO to further expansions of the federal government. These simple tests rule out most sitting senators and many in congress. As they say, this isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take years of experience or some kind of special training, only some commonsense and a backbone.

[Robert Goren]

I have over the years voted for people I disagreed with on several issues over people I agreed with. I aways taken the stance that issues come and go, but being dumber than a fence post isn't going change.

[boxcar]

mack,

if the AK election were a 3rd grade spelling test, then miller won.....if it were an excercise in who the people wanted to serve them, then murkowski won.

thank goodness the election wasn't decided on by 3rd grade hall monitors...grown ups realized what the people wished for, game over.

ELK, you appear to be strong proponent of activist courts, yes? In your mind if court doesn't like (for whatever reason) what is written in a law, you're okay with the court assuming the legislative role and essentially re-writing the law the way he or she likes it? If this this the case, why have legislatures? Why not cut through all the crap and bureaucracy and expensive elections and have a system of government with just two branches -- Judicial and Executive? Really. What purpose does it serve to have a legislative branch when the judicial branches are very often assuming dual roles, anyway? Why not just consolidate by officially assigning legislative duties also to courts?

Boxcar

[Tom]

So, the founding Fathers were law-breakers and should have been thrown in jail. America is a criminal organization and we should give ourselves back to the Queen? Maybe we can pretend we are a wedding gift.

Ok.

[boxcar]

Elk...you continue to avoid the SERIOUS questions this election raises......
Again, its not about Miller or Murkowski......it's about the letter of the law.
The law is clear here...not at all vague.

It's not about what the voters "intent" was.....

The courts have found that voter intent is Paramount and that's why they upheld her election victory. Good for them..But, all they did was CIRCUMVENT THE LAW!

Next thing you know, the government will side step , or use their own "intent" to determine as they wish on such things as manadating insurance.....
telling us whether or not we can eat happy meals....
whether or not we can have salt with our food......
whether or not we can have sugary drinks.....
Ohhhh wait...they already did those too...my apologies! :bang:

Actually, the court did far more than merely "circumvent" the law. The court essentially rewrote the law with its decision because case law will almost always trump the original law and the original intent of that law. That statute, as the Alaskan legislature wrote it, has really been flushed down the crapper for all practical intent and purposes. Just like BO said that he wants to fundamentally transform the face of America, so, too, this court just fundamentally transformed the face of that statue -- a law that was written by the people's elected representatives has essentially been made null and void -- just on a court's whim. Just because the court didn't like the way it was written.

This is a classic example of judicial tyranny, which is a HUGE problem in this country -- and is actually a very weak link in our chain of government. overall. And what some people don't seem to understand or want to understand is that activist jurists like these are themselves anarchists! Whenever you have a jurist or a group of jurists who will act on the basis of what is right in their own eyes, they actually become a law unto themselves. They are, in fact, lawless! This is so because they act beyond the limits of their authority. Therefore, they themselves act outside the very law which they have sworn to uphold! What hypocrites!

And yet, we have conservatives (so called) on this forum who applaud these unrighteous, hypocritical, oath-breaking jurists on the flimsy basis of one excuse or another -- excuses that have nothing to do with this more fundamental problems of the rule of law and adherence to the separation of powers doctrine. What the people supposedly wanted -- or what the qualifications or even the characters of the candidates were -- are considerations that pail by comparison to these two fundamental issues.
Crowning the "will of the people" over the "rule of law" is antithetical to sustaining a free society. In fact, it's the sure path to anarchy on a national level.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

So, the founding Fathers were law-breakers and should have been thrown in jail. America is a criminal organization and we should give ourselves back to the Queen? Maybe we can pretend we are a wedding gift.

Ok.

Why don't you take a stab at drawing all the parallels for us, Tom, between this court case and the founding of this country? I could use a good laugh this "early" -- while I'm still nursing my first cup of java.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Why don't you take a stab at drawing all the parallels for us, Tom, between this court case and the founding of this country? I could use a good laugh this "early" -- while I'm still nursing my first cup of java.

Boxcar

If you are laughing, it is at yourself. It is YOUR definition of following laws to the letter. Do you agree the FF broke laws? If so, how it is it different? A law is a law, according to you, and must be obeyed, according to you. The parallels seem obvious to me - in both cases, the letter of the laws was violated. Do you justify it in one case and not the other? Do not strict laws apply equally to all cases? Do you pull a liberal switcheroo here and apply differnet standards when you are unable to sustain your argument objectively?

For the record, I see both cases as EXTREMELY important, since both involve the very core of our freedoms. But the current case at least went through the courts and no one dressed up as Indians.

How should a court have found the FF for their actions?
Focus - laws were broken......do you support the same response in both cases.

[boxcar]

If you are laughing, it is at yourself. It is YOUR definition of following laws to the letter. Do you agree the FF broke laws? If so, how it is it different? A law is a law, according to you, and must be obeyed, according to you.

For the record, I see both cases as EXTREMELY important, since both involve the very core of our freedoms. But the current case at least went through the courts and no one dressed up as Indians.

How should a court have found the FF for their actions?

Quit spouting hot air. Draw the parallels for us. Tell us how a people fleeing the oppression of one country to found another to live in freedom equates with an activist court's decision.

But I will answer your one question about the Founders and whether or not they "broke laws": NO! And I can tell you why. But before I do, you answer me this: Did the Alaskan courts act outside of their authority by violating the "separation of powers" doctrine, and why were the early settlers in this country lawbreakers?

You're like a ship in storm-tossed sea on this issue. You're drifting aimlessly all over the map in defending the court's decsion, going from candidate qualifications to the will of the people to the constitutionality of the law and now to some lame attempt at drawing an analogy with the founding of this country.

Boxcar

[Tom]

You might want to take your head out of your ass before you read posts. You might understand a few of them. Your denial that the FF broke laws is not worthy of a kindergarten debate. Did they own the tea they dumped in Boston harbor?

If not, they broke laws.

Did they refuse to pay their taxes?

If so, they broke the law.

End of this nonsense - you substitute name calling for debate and I have no time to waste on this. The RIGHT outcome happened in Alaska and you can whine all you want about it.

[Tom]

Turning to the language of subsection (a)(11), it is evident that it does not require exact spelling. Page 5.

http://www.courts.alaska.gov/ops/sp-6532.pdf

Anyone have a link to the law itself?

Never mind - I found it.

Use Edit > Find "spell" You will not find the words spell, spelling spelled anywhere in the law.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/15/15.15./15.15.360.

[newtothegame]

Tom, not that my post mean alot here...But, if I may.......
To compare the FF with todays arguement is a bit of a stretch. YES the FF, as well as what happened during the tea parties in boston was breaking the law. The difference is THEN, they could NOT rewrite the English law.
The entire thing was a debacle as they were NOT being represented. Remember, it was taxation without representation!
This is not a case even close with the exception of the letter of the law being broken.
And yes, to your point, many laws have been broken over time. That does NOT make them right. In the case of our FF, even though they broke the law, I felt they were JUSTIFIED as they had no other alternatives in their minds. I mean they had already went what must of seemed like thousands of miles to get away...what else could they do?
In this AK law, the law was very specific as this had happened before. As I mentioned, I could care less about Miller or Murkowski. Personally, I think Miller is acting like a buffoon and a child throwing a tantrum. But, that doesnt change the fact that BY LAW, he should be the certified winner.
This government has been allowed to run roughshod over the constituents for many years. As long as its constitients allow this behavior, we too could be headed for another TEA PARTY as was held in Boston.
If Box wants parallels, here's one for ya....
Oppressive taxes continue to rise.....
Government doing as it wants to hold power......
Constituency feeling tyranny from its leaders......
I agree, it should be Murkowski.........I mean c'mon, its obvious who the voters wanted. But it doesnt change the law.
How about this.....how about the fact we hold our elected represenatives to standards that we do not hold for ourselves?? What I mean is we call them idiots because they think they can see Russia from their backyard, or they do not know how many states there are...yet we allow people who can't even spell there elected officials names a pass???? We say that we would like it changed that you have to be able to speak and write in English to be able to vote. I wonder how many of those voters in AK could speak or write fluent English? America needs to wake up, get its head out of its arse and see whats around the bend. Seems kind of crazy to me.
Now there will be some here who call me crazy for that statement...and thats ok. Ive been called worse lol.
But more people need to be involved in politics...maybe this crazy shit would stop happeneing!

[newtothegame]

Page 5.

http://www.courts.alaska.gov/ops/sp-6532.pdf

Anyone have a link to the law itself?

Never mind - I found it.

Use Edit > Find "spell" You will not find the words spell, spelling spelled anywhere in the law.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/15/15.15./15.15.360.

Your right Tom, it does NOT use the word "spelling".....or "spell"....but it does use the word "as it appears" as well as "no exceptions" and can NOT be more clear in my opinion.



"(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.

(b) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.

[ArlJim78]

what part of "mandatory" and "no exceptions" is so confusing?

[boxcar]

You might want to take your head out of your ass before you read posts. You might understand a few of them. Your denial that the FF broke laws is not worthy of a kindergarten debate. Did they own the tea they dumped in Boston harbor?

If not, they broke laws.

Did they refuse to pay their taxes?

If so, they broke the law.

End of this nonsense - you substitute name calling for debate and I have no time to waste on this. The RIGHT outcome happened in Alaska and you can whine all you want about it.

Since you're not going to be able to show me where I called you a "name" in this thread, I would suggest that you follow your own advice that you have given me -- providing there are crowbars long enough for you to dig that deep! I have not called you any names in this thread. All I have done is challenge you.

Now, for you to compare the settling of this country and all the travails it suffered, in order to finally procure freedom from a tyrannical king in England, to the judicial tyranny of the Alaskan court is patently absurd on the face it.

Coming right out of the chute you conveniently forget about the larger contexts of the instances you mention. You completely overlook the fact that nations can make unrighteous laws. But even more importantly, the settlers from England came here to to escape religious oppression. In England they were not free to worship according to dictates of their conscience, and so they rightfully tried to escape that tyranny of a church-state government. This historical fact is foundational to understanding all that followed in the early history of this country. If the settlers wanted to remain under the tyranny of a state-church rule, why wouldn't they have just remained in England.? :bang: :bang: Why else would they have risked all to sail thousands of miles and face numerous dangers and perils, if they weren't seeking freedom? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The indisputable fact that they could not worship God as they saw fit justified their flight from their king; for scripture makes it abundantly clear that whenever man's laws conflict with God's, God's laws take precedent!. This is made very clear in scripture.

So, yes, did the early settlers break laws from another country -- from a country they rightfully fled in order to procure true freedom, especially freedom of worship -- freedom of religion? Yes, but only when viewed from a horizontal, non-biblical perspective! But from the vertical perspective they did not break any laws. In fact, they obeyed God rather than men! So, all this was justified due to the larger historical contexts and even more importantly due to the reason I gave above. This is precisely why your analogy was so anemic. The parallels are at best comatose and on life support, if not already laid out on a cold slab in a mortuary. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

what part of "mandatory" and "no exceptions" is so confusing?

I know what happened. This was obviously a liberal court, so they pulled a Hcap. Instead of taking the language literally, they allegorized it. :D

Boxcar

[Tom]

The difference is THEN, they could NOT rewrite the English law.
The entire thing was a debacle as they were NOT being represented. Remember, it was taxation without representation!

Exactly. And if the write in votes were thrown out, the majority of voters in Alaska would not be represented either. The right to vote is primary.

The only reason I used the FF as an example is because they broke British laws. And we celebrate that they did.

We have courts for a reason. This is one example. Nowhere in the law is spelling discussed.

[Tom]

The point *






.................................................. ....................Boxcar *

[newtothegame]

Exactly. And if the write in votes were thrown out, the majority of voters in Alaska would not be represented either. The right to vote is primary.

The only reason I used the FF as an example is because they broke British laws. And we celebrate that they did.

We have courts for a reason. This is one example. Nowhere in the law is spelling discussed.
You seem to want to lead to disinfrachised if the votes were tossed out.....
I would agree they would of been.....WITH one main stipulation.....
They (the people) would of disinfranchised themselves by not knowing the law.
What about the other side who now feel like the election was robbed from them as they did their part correctly??
Bottom line is that I do understand where your coming from.....
I also agree that voters should not ever be disinfranchised when possible.....
(key there being when possible) as this law was clear. You can sit and try to say it didn't contain this word or that word...but you know that this law was clear and not at all vague.
Just as we hold our elected officials to standards, we should also hold the constituency to standards. In this case, they had an OBLIGATION to correctly spell the name per the law!

[boxcar]

Exactly. And if the write in votes were thrown out, the majority of voters in Alaska would not be represented either. The right to vote is primary.

The only reason I used the FF as an example is because they broke British laws. And we celebrate that they did.

We have courts for a reason. This is one example. Nowhere in the law is spelling discussed.

Tom, Tom...the people were REPRESENTED when their elected representatives in the legislature wrote the law! :bang: :bang: We are not a nation of anarchists (at least not yet). Nor are we a pure democracy.

Yes, the early settlers did break British laws but only to obey a higher one. And divine law always takes precedence over man's law's.

And I believe Saratoga Mike posted the law in this thread. It's here somewhere.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Tom, also see Saratoga's post #55. The statute is quoted there.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Tom, Tom...the people were REPRESENTED when their elected representatives in the legislature wrote the law! :bang: :bang: We are not a nation of anarchists (at least not yet). Nor are we a pure democracy.

Yes, the early settlers did break British laws but only to obey a higher one. And divine law always takes precedence over man's law's.

And I believe Saratoga Mike posted the law in this thread. It's here somewhere.

Boxcar

The law doesn't overtly state the name must be spelled correctly. Instead, it states the vote "shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy." So we're debating: "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy." To me, that means the name should be spelled just as it is on the declaration of candidacy form. However, Alaskan case law, which I disagree with, sides with Tom.

Just one small correction: the plurality of Alaskan voters voted for Ms. Murkowski, not the majority.

[boxcar]

The law doesn't overtly state the name must be spelled correctly. Instead, it states the vote "shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy." So we're debating: "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy." To me, that means the name should be spelled just as it is on the declaration of candidacy form. However, Alaskan case law, which I disagree with, sides with Tom.

Just one small correction: the plurality of Alaskan voters voted for Ms. Murkowski, not the majority.

Why didn't I think of that!? The court pulled a Clinton. But instead of saying it depends on what is meant by "is", it questioned what is meant by "as". I got it now. :D Those little two-letter words can be a bear.

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

ELK, you appear to be strong proponent of activist courts, yes?

You should watch the Jets / Colts SB3 rerun. Kick back and enjoy the game. Or better yet, get laid.

Take my advice, you'll thank me later. You won't be so solely focused on a singular line and make yourself look so myopic....or make assumptions that are so wrong, they're funny

Now we return you to your regularly scheduled turdwrestling program....

[Tom]

The law doesn't overtly state the name must be spelled correctly. Instead, it states the vote "shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy." So we're debating: "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy." To me, that means the name should be spelled just as it is on the declaration of candidacy form. However, Alaskan case law, which I disagree with, sides with Tom.

Just one small correction: the plurality of Alaskan voters voted for Ms. Murkowski, not the majority.

To me, it means you don't write in "The republican dame." :D
Did the voters even have access to that form to know?

OK, plurality, not majority. But more wanted her than wanted the whiner.

[Saratoga_Mike]

To me, it means you don't write in "The republican dame." :D
Did the voters even have access to that form to know?

OK, plurality, not majority. But more wanted her than wanted the whiner.

I understand your position. I'm curious, though, if the statute specifically stated the name must be spelled correctly, would you view the matter differently?

[Tom]

Probably not. I would say it was too restrictive a requirement and the law would have to be re-written, for the reasons cited in the court decision.
The right to vote has to be inclusive, not exclusive. We need to include the voters in the -4,5,6 sigma tails.

Laws are written to ensure justice is served. It is the laws that must adjust to serve reality.

The bottom line is that will of the people be achieved. In this case, I don't think anyone can argue which candidate was the people's choice.

I'm all for obeying laws and laws apply to everyone, no matter who you are (Charlie Rangel included!). But to do that, we need to constantly review our laws and the effects they have on us.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Probably not. I would say it was too restrictive a requirement and the law would have to be re-written, for the reasons cited in the court decision.
The right to vote has to be inclusive, not exclusive. We need to include the voters in the -4,5,6 sigma tails.

Laws are written to ensure justice is served. It is the laws that must adjust to serve reality.

The bottom line is that will of the people be achieved. In this case, I don't think anyone can argue which candidate was the people's choice.

I'm all for obeying laws and laws apply to everyone, no matter who you are (Charlie Rangel included!). But to do that, we need to constantly review our laws and the effects they have on us.

We disagree, but I respect the consistency in the application of your principles.

[boxcar]

Probably not. I would say it was too restrictive a requirement and the law would have to be re-written, for the reasons cited in the court decision.
The right to vote has to be inclusive, not exclusive. We need to include the voters in the -4,5,6 sigma tails.

The less restrictive a law is, the more it becomes susceptible to abuses. To get the spelling of someone's name correct hardly takes a college degree.

Laws are written to ensure justice is served. It is the laws that must adjust to serve reality.

Laws are primarily written to restrict or restrain human behavior -- to help restrain our lawless ways. Good laws are written to protect us from one another, and right here is the number one acid test as to whether or not a law is just or not. In the specific case of this law under discussion, it passes this test with flying colors; for the law protected the integrity of the votes of the honest and responsible voters against potential abuses from either their more irresponsible or dishonest counterparts or from corrupt election officials. I believe this is why the law was written in such a restrictive manner in the first place.

The bottom line is that will of the people be achieved. In this case, I don't think anyone can argue which candidate was the people's choice.

But the "will of the people" must be achieved lawfully, not through judicial tyranny. Not by a court who exceeds its constitutional authority (state and federal alike!) by flagrantly violating the separation of powers doctrine and effectively assuming a legislative role by rewriting the law from the bench. Justice is never served under the excuse or guise of serving some perceived or even genuine "greater good" when that end is achieved through illegal means. Doing what is right in our own eyes is the essence of moral relativism (Pr 21:2).

Permit me to draw a good analogy for you -- one to which you'll be able to relate. I know that you're against unbridled big entitlements. You oppose, in principle, the government stealing the fruits of working people's labors in order to give (in many cases) to the slothful and freeloaders in society. You oppose sanctimonious, self-righteous politicians playing the role of Robin Hood in order to "give to the poor". However, we both know what the common rebuttals are from the Left in their attempt to justify this process. They say it's for the "greater good". That it serves the "public interest" and that above all "social justice" demands that society look after "the poor". We both know this is how the Left justifies the theft of money (under the force of law) from the hard working producers in this country to give to those who have not earned it. The Left essentially says the ends justifies the means because, to their way of thinking, "justice is being served". The Left has no problem violating the property rights of one group in the name of serving a "greater good" by providing money to another group.

Therefore, I submit to you that you have adopted the Left's mindset in this election issue in Alaska. The parallel is clear for all to see; for you, too, attempt to justify the court's unlawful decision because the people's will was served -- the people got what they wanted. The decision was unlawful because the activist court exceeded its authority. But nonetheless, in your mind the end justifies the means -- which is not a very principled stand. You believe it's okay that the court exceeded its lawful authority because a "greater good" was served, i.e. the people's will. The end result justifies the unlawful means! And you believe this served justice!

I'm all for obeying laws and laws apply to everyone, no matter who you are (Charlie Rangel included!). But to do that, we need to constantly review our laws and the effects they have on us.

Agreed. But that process must be done lawfully -- by the people and through the people's elected representatives, and not through activist courts that take it upon themselves to exceed their lawful authority by rewriting laws they don't like.

Boxcar

[TJDave]

that process must be done lawfully -- by the people and through the people's elected representatives, and not through activist courts that take it upon themselves to exceed their lawful authority by rewriting laws they don't like.


Judicial review is a legal form of redress...initiated "by the people".

Courts do not "take it upon themselves". Petitions are filed, evidence is presented and weighed, precedent is considered and justice is delivered.

[boxcar]

Judicial review is a legal form of redress...initiated "by the people".

Courts do not "take it upon themselves". Petitions are filed, evidence is presented and weighed, precedent is considered and justice is delivered.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court itself decided that it had that power -- not "the people". (How convenient.) The court essentially decided that this power was derived implicitly from Articles III and VI in the Constitution. However, if this is true, then the "wall of separation of powers" (my phrase and a lot more legitimate than the supposed "wall of separation between church and state") has effectively been torn down -- been demolished. Where in this doctrine (which I believe is unconstitutional) are the checks and balances which the Fathers intended? In reality, the courts are the final and supreme authority on all matters of law. But was this the intent of the Founders? If it was, then the courts are ultimately the most powerful of all government entities; for their rulings are final and all but irrevocable. (Yes, I know case law can be overturned, but this doesn't happen very often.) Who is going to overturn judicial fiat? The power of judicial fiat can only lead to judicial tyranny. So, yes...I stand my remarks that "courts take it upon themselves..." in many cases. (And as an interesting aside, the bible itself speaks much about "unrighteous judges".)

Obviously, this "judicial review" doctrine (with which many conservative legal scholars oppose) can very easily be abused -- and historically has! Take this Alaskan case. Whose rights were violated by the law as written? Do not certain levels of responsibility attend to all rights? Aren't certain levels of responsibility presumed with the exercise of all privileges and rights?

Or who was "injured" by this law? The irresponsible or the lazy who didn't care enough or think it important enough to get the spelling of a name correct -- "as it appears"? Tom said the law implied a "literacy test". Well, guess what: Is not the ballot form itself presented in written form -- with written instructions on it? :bang: :bang: Doesn't the written form itself make the fundamental assumption that voters are able to read and comprehend the written words at a certain level? :bang: :bang:

However, this court's decision will have long term effects on the rights of those who are responsible enough to follow the law because this ruling will compromise the integrity and value of their votes by voters who don't give a flip about laws. (A good parallel here is the illegal immigration issue and how inherently unfair it would be to law-abiding immigrants if the state granted special rights or amnesty to their illegal counterparts.) It's unfair to compromise the value and integrity of legitimate votes that more responsible voters placed lawfully. The ruling itself only begs for corrupt practices.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

TJDave, here is a quote from a guy who strongly opposed "judicial review" for the very reasons I've stated. He nails the crux of the problem with this doctrine squarely:

Robert Yates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from New York, predicted during the ratification process how the courts would use the power of judicial review:
“ [I]n their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal.[8]

This guy had an excellent grasp on human nature. This quote, btw, was taken from Wiki.

Boxcar

[Tom]

The right person was sworn it.

The law failed to do what it was supposed to do - ensure a fair election and afford the opportunity to vote to the maximum number of people.

[boxcar]

The right person was sworn it.

The law failed to do what it was supposed to do - ensure a fair election and afford the opportunity to vote to the maximum number of people.

How was the law unfair, specifically? And how did the law restrict voters from voting for their choices? Because the law presumed that all voters generally possess a certain level of reading comp skills? If so, should a law be written outlawing any written instructions at the polls on the assumption that most people don't possess rudimentary reading and writing skills? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But let's move on. The primary objective of law is to protect human beings from one another. The primary objective is to restrain immoral behavior under the threat of its penalties. The primary objective is to restrain evil -- to restrain lawlessness. And we know all this in two ways. We know this from the teachings of Special Revelation (the bible) and Natural Revelation (reality as we all know it).

With regard to this latter revelation, we know that all nations have laws and that all who live in those nations are subject to those laws; therefore since laws apply to everyone upon the earth, this implies a universal presumption of lawlessness or evil among all mankind. And since all men (at least theoretically) are afforded equal protection (from one another) under law, this further implies the need for universal protection from that evil -- from lawless mankind.

This truth in Natural Revelation reflects what Special Revelation teaches, which is what we should expect since all truth is God's truth. In Romans 2, the apostle teaches us that all men are under [God's] Law. The Gentiles, who were not privy to God's written law (as the Jews were) nonetheless because they still do the things, instinctively, that are in God's law, they demonstrate that his Law is written in their hearts and their conscience either excuses or condemn them. And the Jews who were the chosen people of God and did have his Law in codified form are also accountable to God for obvious reasons (cf Rom2:12ff). Therefore, both groups will stand before God one day and be accountable for their lives; for both groups -- the Gentiles "without the law" (in codified form) -- and the Jews who were under God's law -- all were and still are subject to his Law.

And this is the way it is also in reality as we all know it. Laws apply to all men because of the universal presence of evil in the world -- the universal presence of lawlessness. For this reason all men need to be protected from one another, which is the core, central purpose behind good laws.

Moreover, this universally recognized reality is entirely consistent with another universal moral principle -- one we know about and have looked at in the past -- the Universal Presumption of Distrust among all men, until proven otherwise.

Also, a law can only be said to be "unfair" or unjust if it doesn't apply equally to all men, or it fails in its core purpose to protect us from one another or its core purpose is for something other than for protection. (Good examples of such laws can be found in various entitlement laws, ObamaCare, affirmative action laws, tax laws, etc., etc., etc.)

Finally, before I shake the dust off my feet of this topic (because I perceive none of my arguments will persuade you) I know you have mentioned (among many things in your superficial defense of this court's decision) that the court did a good thing in applying the "spirit of the law" in its decision. I would like to say two things about this. First there are indeed instances when a law is designed to be interpreted literally and "in the spirit". One kind of law that immediately comes to mind are the Money Laundering Laws, which are essentially administered by the IRS . When you read these, it becomes abundantly clear that licensed people, companies or agents who market and sell Money Transfer Instruments, Money Orders, etc. are to adhere to both the strict letter AND "spirit of the law". For example, a seller is bound by law to report any activity that he thinks may be suspicious, regardless of whether any law was actually broken. But this kind of "spirit of the law" intent by the Alaskan lawmakers is conspicuously absent, since the language of the statue is succinct, explicit and very straightforward -- very much unlike the above mentioned Money Laundering Laws, which are actually quite verbose in order to get across their dual intent.

And finally, I would caution you to placing any trust at all in any supposed "spirit of the law" when it comes to God's law. As Jesus himself said -- not one stroke -- not even the smallest letter -- will pass away from the Law until all is accomplished.

I'm outta here. As Mr. Big 'O would say, you can have the last word.

Boxcar

[Tom]

The law did not say spelling.
Some thought it meant that, others did not.
The courts made an interpretation.
End of story.

Re-write the law and specifically say spelled exactly the same and you have a whole new ball game.

[ElKabong]

The law did not say spelling.
Some thought it meant that, others did not.
The courts made an interpretation.
End of story.

Re-write the law and specifically say spelled exactly the same and you have a whole new ball game.

pssst...Some ain't gonna get it ;)

[Jay Trotter]

Lisa Murkowski passes away at age 92

Lisa Ann Murkowski, the senior U.S. Senator from the state of Alaska passed away today. She was originally appointed to the Senate in 2002 by her father, Governor Frank Murkowski,and subsequently first elected in 2004 and continually re-elected until the time of her passing. She is the first U.S. Senator to have been born in Alaska, the first woman to serve in Congress from the state, and in 2010 she became the second person (and first woman, and first incumbent) to be elected to the U.S. Senate via write-in votes; the only other person to do so was Strom Thurmond in 1954.

After much controversy regarding her stunning upset as a write-in candidate she went on to a long and storied career in the Senate, proving the will of the people was served in 2010.

Her nemisis in that election, Joe Miller ended up a hermit and was last seen panning for gold somewhere in the Yukon.

News at 11.............and speaking of beating a dead horse.....

[Tom]

Her nemisis in that election, Joe Miller ended up a hermit and was last seen panning for gold somewhere in the Yukon.
Miller, wearing a buckskin coat, was shot by Sarah Palin from a helicopter.