Replies

ANYBODY is a potential write in candidate....how can providing "lists" be legal?...well it would be legal is every single person in the world's name was on it, but then that takes away a voters choice to write in "Mickey Mouse" etc....

Come on Joe.....defeat this evil witch..

I hope the judges will agree once they read the briefs requested later today. AK has 5 Supremes: 2 appointed by Palin, 1 by Parnell, 2 by former Rat Gov. Knowles and none by Murky's dad. Sounds good until we remember that Palin received some grief over at least one of her picks. It seems that AK is one of those states where the Gov. has to pick judicial nominees from a short list compiled by others and said others weren't supplying very good options. Thus they are only marginally their Governor's picks. If this goes wrong Palin and Parnell may not deserve the blame.

Several states have similar systems - my Iowa has since 1961 - and they are touted by self styled good government types as ways to remove partisanship from the bench. Alas several states are finding the partisanship has just moved out of site to the closed from public view judicial selection committees. Iowa's such has 11 Democrats and only one Republican and from the way the committee is chosen I don't know how we got the one. Some states have notable judicial retention votes on their ballots (IA and KS both come to mind) next week. Although voting off bad judges is desirable we really need to look at how their replacements are picked and consider fixing that process. In IA the process could put the same voter rejected judges back on the bench in spite of anything the public, or the governor, could do.