It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alaska high court throws out Miller claims

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
The biggest sore loser like...ever...has recieved a death blow from high courts basically telling him to just shut up already (but with better court talk)
Source


JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - The Alaska Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a lower court decision in the disputed U.S. Senate race, saying the state correctly counted write-in votes for Sen. Lisa Murkowski. It is now up to Republican Joe Miller to decide if the election is finally over.
The court said in its ruling it found "no remaining issues raised by Miller that prevent this election from being certified."

A federal judge, who had put a hold on certification to give the state courts time to rule on Miller's claims, said he would give Miller 48 hours to plead any outstanding issues to him once the high court had ruled.

Miller did not immediately comment.

The decision follows Miller's appeal of a state judge's decision to toss out his challenge to the state's counting of ballots for Murkowski. Miller maintained the state should be held to the letter of the law, which calls for write-in ballots to have the oval filled in and the last name of a candidate or the name as it appears on the declaration of candidacy written in.

The state pointed to case law in defending its practice of using discretion in determining voter intent, allowing ballots with misspellings to be counted toward Murkowski's tally.


Hell no you can't!

Sorry Sarah..Alaska wasn't a fan if your top pick...seems he was just as crazy as you.
What a character this guy is...I am somewhat sad about the results though, anyone this crazy would be entertaining to watch in the spotlight
Well sorry Joe, back to the woodpile for you.




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Im glad to see this guy was quelled before he began. He was a nightmare waiting to happen.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Joe Miller proved himself to be another neocon hack, but Murkowski is just taking his place. She's little different other than a tad bit more moderate. I'm glad Joe Miller go struck down by the courts, the silence on the forum is very apparent of this, but murkowski, yep, shes just another hack in DC... just that little bit likable.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Murkowski is a whacko who can't give up power, just like that extremist witch Pelosi who couldn't face her losses after the November elections.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I don't see what the problem is. He is trying to get the "State, Division of Elections, to comply with state law."

His side of the story

Why shouldn't they have to follow the law?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blueracer
I don't see what the problem is. He is trying to get the "State, Division of Elections, to comply with state law."

His side of the story

Why shouldn't they have to follow the law?



Because we're no longer a nation of law.

Rich people are exempt from our laws.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blueracer
I don't see what the problem is. He is trying to get the "State, Division of Elections, to comply with state law."

His side of the story

Why shouldn't they have to follow the law?


Ultimately, the non-disputed votes showed she still won anyhow...he said he would drop once it became mathmatically impossible to win. So...he..did the exact opposite as he said and didn't drop.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blueracer
Why shouldn't they have to follow the law?


I recalled last year this forum was filled with anti-government rants, now its about "following the law". Now while it is important to follow most laws, it is ridiculous to assume that every single law out there must be followed.


Arkansas:
--A man can legally beat his wife, but no more than once a month.

California:
--In, LA, a man may legally beat his wife with a leather strap, as long as it is less than 2 inches wide, or she gives him permission to use a wider strap.
--It is a misdemeanor to shoot any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Florida:
--Unmarried women who parachute on Sunday's will be jailed.

Georgia:
--In Quitman, it is illegal for a chicken to cross the road.
--In Columbus, it is illegal to sit on one's porch in an indecent position.

Indiana:
--Monkey's are forbidden to smoke cigarettes in South Bend.

Illinois:
--In Chicago, it is illegal to take a french poodle to the Opera.
--According to state law, it is illegal to speak English. The officially recognized language is "American."
--In Joliet, it is illegal to mispronounce the name Joliet.

Massachusetts:
--It is illegal to wear a goatee without a license.
--North Andover prohibits its citizens from carrying "space guns."
--In 1659, the state outlawed Christmas.

Minnesota:
--It is illegal to tease skunks.
--Every man in Brainerd is required by law to grow a beard.

Michigan:
--A State law stipulates that a woman's hair legally belongs to her husband.
--Under State law, dentists are officially classified as "mechanics."

Montana:
--In Whitehall, it is illegal to operate a vehicle with ice picks attached to the wheels.
--It is a felony for a wife to open her husband's mail.

New York:
--In NYC, "it is disorderly conduct for one man to greet another on the street by placing the end of his thumb against the tip of his nose and wiggling the extended fingers of that hand."

North Carolina:
--It is illegal to make love on the floor of a hotel room between two double beds.

Oklahoma:
--Whale hunting is strictly forbidden.
--People who make "ugly faces" at dogs may be fined and/or jailed.

Ohio:
--In Columbus, it is illegal for stores to sell corn flakes on Sunday.
--In Oxford, it's illegal for a woman to disrobe in front of a man's picture.
--In Youngstown, it is illegal to run out of gas.

Oregon:
--The town of Hood River prohibits the act of juggling without a license.

Nebraska:
--If a child burps during a church service in Omaha, his or her parents may be arrested.
--It is illegal for a mother to give her daughter a perm without a state license

Pennsylvania:
--"Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass. If the horses appear skittish, the motorist must take his car apart piece by piece, and hide it under the nearest bushes."

Rhode Island:
--Its illegal to throw pickle juice on a trolley.

Tennessee:
--It is illegal to use a lasso to catch a fish.
--In Dyersburg, it is illegal for a woman to call a man for a date.
--In Memphis, it is illegal for a woman to drive by herself; "a man must walk or run in front of the vehicle, waving a red flag in order to warn approaching pedestrians and motorists."

Texas:
--The entire Encyclopedia Brittanica is banned because it contains a formula for making beer at home.
--It is illegal to milk another person's cow.

Utah:
--A husband is responsible for every criminal act committed by his wife
in his presence.

Virginia:
--In Richmond, it is illegal to flip a coin in any eating establishment to determine who buys a cup of coffee.
--In Lebanon, it is illegal to kick your wife out of bed.


But hey! We should follow the law! (only if it involves rightwing hacks).



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Nonsensical answer. So because there are some stupid laws on the books, then none of them should be followed? I suppose if he was a democrat you'd be supporting him?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blueracer
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Nonsensical answer. So because there are some stupid laws on the books, then none of them should be followed?


Did I say that? Lets go down my previous post again:


Now while it is important to follow most laws, it is ridiculous to assume that every single law out there must be followed.


Where did I say none? There are some silly laws out there that need not apply. If a voter spelt Murkowski as Merkowski, even if it is apparent their intention, you intend to strip their vote away? Really? How pathetic.

If you had 80% of voters misspell Millers name as 'Meller' I'd bet my bottom dollar there'd be a different tune from people like you.


I suppose if he was a democrat you'd be supporting him?


Why should I? Democrats have proven themselves not to be consistently liberal. They voted side by side with the Republicans for the patriot act, the Iraq war, half of them went against the public option last year. The "Democrat" label doesnt equate to liberalism for me, even though there may be some democrats in there, so no. If Miller was a democrat I still would not be supporting him. Max Baucus is a democrat, does that mean he is a consistent liberal? Not what his record shows. What about Arlen Specter? Because he converted to being a Democrat this makes him a liberal? Is he a consistent liberal. Not by my books.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Blueracer
 


So, in essence, Joe Miller is trying to usurp the will of the people by declaring that he's the winner because he came in second to someone who wasn't even on the ballot? Way to go Joe, way to stick by your populist principles.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join