Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/2/2002 6:07:45 AM EDT
The NJ Supreme Court will hear arguments today as to whether State Election Laws apply to Democ[b]rat[/b]s in New Jersey. What will be their decision? * They deny Dem's effort to replace Torch with Lautenberg on ballots. * They allow Dem's to replace Torch with Lautenberg on ballots.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 6:23:35 AM EDT
NJ Supreme Court decision, whatever it is, will be appealed by the losing (of course) party to USSC. USSC action will extend past November election date rendering any NJSC decision moot. NJ Demo governor has some authority to name replacement for resigning Senator. Likely to see action by governor in place of, or in conjunction with, NJSC action. This will be appealed also. To Federal District or USSC. Dem's can't win on the merits so they will try for a technical decision. In the larger picture the publicity from this is a win/win situation for the Republicans. Coupled with the astoundingly stupid Dem congresscritters' statements from Bagdad last weekend pretty much spells disaster for Dem control of Congress. Manchurian McCain and Turncoat Jeffords have much less attractive futures these days.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 6:26:07 AM EDT
N.J. Supremes would let let Fred-the-Cow go on the ballot. N.J. Supremes allow the substitution - Republicans petition the BIG Supremes who agree to hear the case on an expedited basis - Big Supremes vote to keep (By a one vote majority) the Torch on the ballot. Likely reason - the voting has already begun. That's my SWAG and I'm sticking to it ! Maybe.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 6:35:57 AM EDT
I just got this via email. We all need to do what we can to fight this BS! "Senator Torricelli and the Democrat Party are trying to circumvent the democratic process and steal away what would surely have been a victory for Doug Forrester, the Republican candidate in November’s Senate election in New Jersey. If the Democrats succeed in their illegal attempt to rig this election they will significantly improve their chances of retaining control of the Senate or worse…their ability to freeze President Bush’s agenda and his judicial nominees in the Senate. With what is going on in New Jersey and elsewhere, things could not be clearer. We need your immediate financial support. Published reports suggest Democrat strategists are already considering how to pull the money they were using to support Senator Torricelli and spend it on other top races. If this happens, our candidates in Minnesota, Missouri and elsewhere are likely to feel the heat of millions of dollars in attack style advertising. If the Democrat Party is cynical enough to think they can manipulate the New Jersey election, what is to stop them from going all out to defend their Majority with negative, vicious, Clinton-style attack ads or spreading their campaign of dirty tricks? For two years, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been the vanguard in the fight to regain the Senate Majority for President Bush. We have worked hard to field top candidates like Doug Forrester, Jim Talent, Norm Coleman and Elizabeth Dole to name just a few. And it is our responsibility to defend these candidates from the millions of dollars in liberal special interest money spent on behalf of Democrats and the cynical “Machine” style tricks of the Democrat Party. Your donation of $25, $50, $100 or whatever you can afford will immediately be put to good use defending our topflight candidates from the lies and dirty tricks of the Democrat Party and their special interest allies. To donate online please click here: https://www.campaignsolutions.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ExecMacro/profile.d2w/input?can_ref=73 To donate by phone please call 202.675.6000 and ask for our Web Department. We pledge to do our best to stop the Democrats in New Jersey and elsewhere and regain a Bush Senate Majority come November and I hope you will stand with us. Thank you for your time. Bill Frist, MD Chairman, NRSC Please forward this message to anyone who is interested in helping us succeed in electing a Bush Majority to the United States Senate. NRSC | 425 Second Street, NE | Washington, DC | 20002 *********************************************­****************** Paid for and authorized by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Contributions to the National Republican Senatorial Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions which exceed the limits permitted by, or which may not be accepted under, federal law will not be used for federal election purposes. Contributions from foreign nationals are not permitted. Not printed at government expense. Federal Law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contribution exceed $200 in a calendar year. "
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 6:38:23 AM EDT
I think the absentee ballots are fucking the whole thing up for the democraps. I don't think they have enough time to resend the ballots with the new name and they cannot allow ballots to come back with the old name. So what do they do?
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 6:45:48 AM EDT
The Dems are trying to get the Torch to resign, then McGreevy will appoint Lautenberg and then under the law, he is the [illegal] senator for a year. So far, Torch has refused. If he does NOT resign, the Dems are in trouble, because I think Forrester beats the hell out of Lautenberg anyway...and I think the Dems know that. It's too late for them now. If Torch does reisgn, then that partisan scumbag McGreevy appoints Lautenberg...and this takes away the apparent people's choice in the upcoming election, gives the Dems a year of grace in the DC power struggle and Lautenberg a year as an incumbent to bring home the bacon and get ready for the special election required by law. It also illegally strips the Republican of his apparent upcoming victory and denies him and the voters of New Jersey their Constitutional rights. I was trolling on the Democratic Underground yesterday. I was stunned by the cackling by the socialists over there who have already figured this out. They are babbling to each other in joy over the opportunity to deny the people their rights and to retain power no matter how it is done. The thought of losing power in the senate is too painful. They say, "...too bad...I don't CARE how we do it...we MUST retain our only check and balance on the illegally "selected" president and his extremist cronies!" They reflect, I believe, the thoughts of a lot of Dems. We must remember that politics is LIFE ITSELF for liberals. The don't have jobs...they live for power and politics. This is WAR for them. I'll give it to the Dems: At least they were truthful about their reasons for pulling this chicanery on the people: They admitted last night in the press conference that this maneuvering is simply to retain Dem control of the Senate. That is their "higher calling". In their minds it would be a disaster of Biblical proportions if the Republicans were to regain control of the Senate, EVEN IF it was the rule of the majority. Amazing...simply fucking amazing. If you can no longer win their hearts and minds in the ballot box...then you win power by trickery and slick deals.[shock] Sounds like the lessons of Lenin were not lost on these folks. If I were the President and the Republican leadership, I would beat the shit out of the Democrats over this issue. Nobody likes a cheat. [pissed]
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 6:49:09 AM EDT
The SCOTUS may not want to touch this at all. It's a purely STATE issue. State laws with no Constitutional grounds for SCOTUS to rule on. Any decision by the State SC will be the "due process" required to be afforded to New Jersey voter. I'm afraid this was all worked out (wink-wink) in advance of Toricelli's pulling out of the race. The NJ Dems know what the NJ SC will do, the NJ SC are mostly good loyal Dems who will use this as "payback" for what happened in Florida. I'm afraid (very afraid) it's a done deal.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 6:50:28 AM EDT
Cynical as I am, I would not be surprised if the NJ court agrees to let the Dems put a new name on the ballot. Just because that would be totally wrong and unethical, therefore New Jersey will do it, just to futher their liberal commie agenda.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 6:53:24 AM EDT
[b]LWilde[/b] nailed it. It's a done deal. If NJSC sides with the Dems, the beloved Lautenberg wins. If ANYONE (NJSC or SCOTUS) goes against the Dems, the Torch will resign before the election and McGreevey will appoint Lautenberg and postpone off the Senate election for a year. All nice and legal like [devil]
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 7:01:22 AM EDT
[red][b]WHOA - WHOA - WHOA !!![/red][/b] I didn't know this... "Six of the seven justices on the state's highest court were appointed by a former Republican governor." [url]http://www.wnbc.com/news/1693980/detail.html[/url] Anyone from NJ know what type of Supreme Court you have up there? How conservative could that court be? Is there hope of a FAIR (i.e. legal) decision from this court?
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 7:07:51 AM EDT
the cup is half empty, and losing water fast
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 7:15:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2002 7:16:43 AM EDT by MAP]
A few point / observations from someone in NJ. 1. The voting issue is Federal in nature. The USSC can take the case if they choose. Bobby is not out yet. My understanding is the NJSC must approve of him dropping out. They (NJSC) could rule that Bobby must remain on the ballot. 2. If Bobby resigns from the Senate the Governor can appoint a replacement. While the NJ statute allows a delay of the election the US Constitution require an election every six (6) years. I do not believe that the NJ Statute can override the US Constitution. 3. To answer someones question, the NJSC is the most liberal court in the country, bar none. I hope the Dems crash and burn. Just my .02 Mike
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 7:15:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde: The Dems are trying to get the Torch to resign, then McGreevy will appoint Lautenberg and then under the law, he is the [illegal] senator for a year. So far, Torch has refused. [pissed]
View Quote
The Torch would have to be a thoroughly rotten piece of shit with no morales or scruples for your scenario to prove true !! Of course the Torch is that person and that makes your scenario likely to be true. [b]The wild card is just how much does the Torch hate Lautenberg ??[/b] Will he resign knowing Lautenberg will be appointed to his seat. Most likely that answer is eventually yes but the Torch has not yet been offered enough money to make this move.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 7:33:25 AM EDT
I f@cking hate Democ[b]rat[/b]s: Lautenberg... said he looked forward to [b]"the shortest campaign I've ever been engaged in."[/b] [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-10-01-lautenberg_x.htm[/url] Forrester has to campaign all year long, raise tons of money, win the primary election, and then that old bag of bones Lautenberg gets to bypass the primaries and skate right onto the ballot with no campaigning required. [b]Oh yeah, THAT'S really fair! [pissed][/b]
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 7:36:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 7:53:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 9:38:46 AM EDT
Majority lib NJSC will vote 6-1 or 7-0 to allow Lautenberg on ballot. Republicans will appeal Because it is an election to a federal position, USSC will accept the case. USSC votes 5-4 to not allow replacement. Case closed.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 9:41:42 AM EDT
Strange. I have to agree with the [b]subdude[/b] on this one! [:D] If there is one absentee or military ballot that has been mailed, it would be 'unfair' to those voters to suddenly deny them their choice! Supreme Court is getting used to this BS from the Demos. Eric The(Republican)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 9:45:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 9:59:55 AM EDT
The antigun Republican will carry the day in November.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 10:00:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2002 11:58:42 AM EDT by longshot_va]
Weeehuuuu huhuuuu, 'donja just love politics? I think I'll become a Democrat so [b]I[/b] can lie, cheat, steal, murder, sexually harass, sexually molest, intimidate, (did I forget anything) just generally be morally bankrupt, and feel good about it! That way, any time my candidate is doing poorly in the polls, we just ask him to drop out and replace him with someone who has a better record. Ya know, right up till the day before the election. Why not? What the hell. Maybe we won't even announce a candidate until the night before. That way we can smear the Republican candidate for a whole year with made up or exaggerated statements and accusations. They won't be able to say anything about our Democrat candidate, cause they won't know who he/she is. I think I'm on to something here. Maybe I should post this idea on the [url=www.democratunderground.com/] DU! [/url] [}:)] [:(!] --LS --LS
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 10:02:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Mute: Majority lib NJSC will vote 6-1 or 7-0 to allow Lautenberg on ballot. Republicans will appeal Because it is an election to a federal position, USSC will accept the case. USSC votes 5-4 to not allow replacement. Case closed.
View Quote
Case is never closed for Democ[b]rat[/b]s. If SCOTUS rules against them, the Torch will resign from the Senate immediately before the election and McGreevey will appoint his replacement until another special election is held. At least that's the way it plays out in the Dem's heads.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 12:51:25 PM EDT
Dick Morris, a former clinton advisor, was on fox news not too long ago (speaking of fox, Jane Skinner looks really good!) with Neil Cavuto and he is predicting that the repubs will take New Jersey whether or not lautenberg is put on the ballot. Not only that, but he thinks the republicans will win in Minnesota (I live there...and I'm not so sure about that) and one other place (missouri?) for a 53-47 republican majority in the senate. And they'll take the house again. For once I hope that a democrat is right.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 1:07:34 PM EDT
NJSC will try to allow Lautenberg on the ballot because it would be the "fair" thing to do(never mind that NJ law prohibits replacing a candidate within 51 days of the election), and it will be appealed to USSC by Republican attys. SCOTUS will look at the same laws that the NJSC purports to abide by, and interpret them properly, thus disallowing Lautenberg from being placed on the ballot within 51 days of the election, which is the law in NJ. Dems cry about how it's unfair, and it will all be GW's fault, even though all the mess was caused by the dishonesty and illegal activities of Toricelli, who is one of their own. That's the part that just cracks me up. Their guy screwed the pooch, and should rightfully drop out of the race, and in my mind, be prosecuted. His buddy Chang (or whatever his names is) already is locked up in the pokey for being one half of some of those illegal deals, so it only seems right to me that the other half, who is just as guilty, should be locked up too. So their boy gets his ass in a bind by being shady and getting caught, and when he is forced to drop out of the race, and NJ rules for putting people on the ballot are obeyed, all they will want to do is bitch about how the Reps are trying to keep them down. What a bunch of pathetic losers. I think the Rep candidate will most likely win the election even if they manage to illegaly replace Toricelli. He had a huge lead on Toricelli, and Lautenberg will not be able to get enough votes to overtake that lead even with his name recognition. As far as the gov selecting an interim senator if Torch resigns, the election is still required for that seat by federal law, so if there is no replacement on the ballot, then it's just tough titty for the dems. They can not delay it for a year based on state law where this federal seat is concerned, or at least that's how I understand it.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 2:26:34 PM EDT
If the demoncrats get away with it in NJ, the Republicans in PA ought to bounce Fisher and substitute Schweiker so we don't get stuck with that commie piece of gun grabbing #### Rendell.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 4:44:44 PM EDT
I thought Forrester was pro-gun? GunLvr
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 5:22:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD: I thought Forrester was pro-gun? GunLvr
View Quote
For a New Jerseyan he's pro-gun. There's no link on his website that states a specific opinion on gun-control, but from soundbytes and blerbs from debates, he supports the current laws on the books in New Jersey, and does not support any addition legislational controls for guns. You can take that as pro-gun because he is against banning them outright, and other items on the gun grabbers wishlist.....but.....you can take that as anti because that means he supports the state assault weapons ban, standard capacity mag ban, etc., etc....
Top Top