Slammed by Yet Another Judge, Joe Miller Mulls Next Step in Humiliating Odyssey of Total Defeat

On the heels of a pre-Christmas smackdown by the Alaska Supreme Court, Joe Miller’s challenge to the 2010 Alaska Senate election was dismissed “with prejudice” by US District Court Judge Ralph Beistline in a ruling issued late yesterday.

While Lisa Murkowski’s certification as the winner is now automatic and Judge Beistline’s ruling forecloses all but the most Taitzian stratagems for appeal, Miller remains optimistic

“I am disappointed with the federal court’s ruling today. The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause presented the most significant constitutional issue. Specifically, should the courts be required to follow the legislature’s standard for the selection of U.S. Senators or create their own? My legal team believes that the clear language of the Election Clause as well as precedent support our claims. Thus, we are evaluating the ruling and determining what our next step should be.

According to legal scholars, Miller’s best hopes for overturning the election results include challenging Murkowski to a Disney-style “wacky car” road race from Anchorage to Tierra del Fuego or traveling to the 25th Century to submit his case for retroactive review by a Federation of Planets Tribunal. 

Posted by StrangeAppar8us on 12/29/10 at 10:31 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '10NuttersTeabaggery

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Oh, God.  I’m having flashbacks to the Coleman/Franken fiasco.  Somebody hold me!

He’s only doing it for Alaska, you know—Miller merely wants to ensure that nobody is disenfranchised. This has nothing to do with dragging out the inevitable because it’s so embarrassing to get defeated by the first successful write-in campaign since 1954. Or the painful necessity of returning office furniture, drapes and name plates. Or withdrawing bids on DC real estate. Nope, it’s not that. At all.

Specifically, should the courts be required to follow the legislature’s standard for the selection of U.S. Senators or create their own?

Since the standard of both is probably “whoever gets the most votes” I’m not sure why there’s a conflict.

Damn you, 17th Amendment! From hell’s heart I stab at thee!

From hell’s heart I stab at thee!

With my last neckbeard bristle, I skeeve thee out!

hey, don’t get mad at the 17th amendment!  it baked a pie for you!

Remember, there are always 2nd Amendment options for resolving these things. Sharron Angle said so!

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main