User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 2:37:30 PM EDT
[#1]
Well you know the republicans will take that to the US supreme court.
But that might just piss some folks off towards the republicans out there. It is utter BS, It's like pulling a QB from another team about the 4th quarter... Time is gettin near guys, we need to email, mail, and fax our freinds, family, and congresscritters and get ready for the vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 2:38:21 PM EDT
[#2]
Now reported on Fox News:
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64644,00.html[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 2:40:32 PM EDT
[#3]
isnt lautenberg the guy that passed all that stupid fucking anti-gun shit a while back?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 2:41:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Yup
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 2:43:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Fox news (Brit Hume) reported about the two justices having given money to toricelli (before they were appointed).
He also mentioned the interesting fact that democrats are trying hard to get the very much alive toricelli off of the NJ ballot, but they are trying equally hard to keep the very much dead Mink ON the hawaii ballot. Crooked bastards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 2:55:36 PM EDT
[#6]
And here is the ruling...
[url]http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torricelli/njdpsmsn100202scord.pdf[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 2:59:11 PM EDT
[#7]
I heard this was fully expected and it is likely SCOTUS will rule against them. However, if the Republicans bring a case, rest assured the media will liken it to the presidential election. The irony is the democrats have used to courts against conservatives for years, so this payback must leave an especially sour taste in their mouths. ha ha Payback's a bitch!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:03:57 PM EDT
[#8]
[b]HEAR-YE, HEAR-YE, LET IT BE KNOWN ACROSS THE LAND: [red]THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY DO NOT APPLY TO DEMOC[/RED]RATS[RED]!!! [/RED] SO SAYS THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2002.[/B] [i]"It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups," the court ruled in a unanimous decision. [/i] [B]BULLSHIT![/B] [PISSED] It's in the "general interest of the election laws" that there be a Democrat and Republican on the ballot?!?!? WHAT THE FUCK!?! This was a done-deal that was worked out with the NJ Supreme Court and the Democ[b]rats[/b] before Toricelli even announced. This is SO fucked up it's beyond belief. [pissed] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:09:02 PM EDT
[#9]
My lord I wish it were legal to shoot democrats.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:09:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: As reported on Newsmax.com: "New Jersey's Democrat-dominated state Supreme Court today ruled in favor of disgraced Sen. Robert Torricelli's maneuver to remove his name from the ballot." "Two of those judges have contributed to Torricelli, a fact the pro-Democrat mainstream media is not trumpeting." [url]http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/2/180750[/url] What I find interesting, is that newsmax.com didn't report that the court voted UNANIMOUSLY in favor of the Demos (that means the Republicans and Independents did it too!) -Gloftoe |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:10:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Why am I not surprised ???? [:(!]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:12:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Talk about disenfranchised voters. Not concerned about them now are they?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:13:31 PM EDT
[#13]
[i]"It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups," the court ruled in a unanimous decision. [/i]
[b]So now, it's okay to wait 31 days before an election to name a candidate, as long as that candidate is a Democrat!! Why not 21 days? Why not 10 days? Why even have a primary election anymore? Why even have a general election anymore? What the fuck are ANY election laws for anymore? Why not just take an unannounced poll? Why does the candidate for New Jersey Senate even need to be from New Jersey anymore?? Why not have Bill Clinton run for Senate from New York AND New Jersey?? Who gives a fuck what the election laws or the Constitution says - what's important is that a DEMOCRAT gets on the ballot! Holy SHIT!!! THIS NATION IS A SCHIZOPHRENIC OLIGARCHY!!! God save this nation!!! [/B] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:16:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: What I find interesting, is that newsmax.com didn't report that the court voted UNANIMOUSLY in favor of the Demos (that means the Republicans and Independents did it too!) -Gloftoe Theirs was the first report on the ruling. It's possible that they didn't know. The sick part of it is that now every candidate can be substituted if they feel their poll numbers don't add up to victory. Consider this - based on this ruling, [b]Bill Clinton[/b] could be a candidate for Senator from NJ as long as he establishes residence between the time he is elected and takes the oath of office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:17:25 PM EDT
[#15]
[b]FUCK this PISSES ME OFF!!!![/b] Do you think the Green Party or the Libertarian Party or any Independant candidate would be treated this way by the so-called "impartial, unbiased, justice-is-blind" Supreme Court of the state of New Jerkoffs!! [pissed] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:19:22 PM EDT
[#16]
Another interesting point. This ruling renders primary elections moot, as the party national committee now has the legal authority to appoint anybody to replace a candidate that is persuaded to withdraw their candidacy. The only way the weasels of the NJ Supreme Court could have avoided that was to declare the second place candidate from the primary election as the DemocRAT candidate for Senator.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:21:50 PM EDT
[#17]
[):)]
Time to feed the Hog's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:22:50 PM EDT
[#18]
yep, the hogs look hungry
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:39:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: [i]"It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system[/i] [B]BULLSHIT![/B] [PISSED] It's in the "general interest of the election laws" that there be a Democrat and Republican on the ballot?!?!? WHAT THE FUCK!?! Even more outrageous is the statement that the two-party system is in "the public interest." Yeah, you can have a choice as long as it's between the Republicans and the Democrats--if you want a THIRD choice, we'll treat your party like shit, because, after all, the two party system is in the public interest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:44:55 PM EDT
[#20]
You know, I just erad the full decision, and I can't find ANYTHING that JUSTIFIES the decision! The opinion seems to be comprised of two sections, which run together--a description of the parties, the complains, and the requested relief, and an order ordering said relief.
No examination of relevant law. None. At all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:45:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: What I find interesting, is that newsmax.com didn't report that the court voted UNANIMOUSLY in favor of the Demos What I find interesting, is that this court also voted UNANIMOUSLY that fags should be scoutmasters. These guys are freaks, and anyone of those justices that claims to be republican is a liar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 3:47:43 PM EDT
[#22]
Sadly, this type of stuff doesn't even piss me off anymore...I feel more disillusioned if anything else. It's what politics in the 21st century has become. This country is supposed to serve as a role model for the Democratic process. Now it's becoming more laughable.
This is the kind of stuff that's supposed to happen in South America and Africa; not the United States. I was browsing the DU website earlier today and was surprised to find that a few people there questioned the ethics and honesty of what was taking place in NJ. My personal belief is that this is going to backfire on the Dems in a big way. It's possible that many NJ voters won't even turn up at the polls out of disgust. Hardcore Dems will still vote for their boy. The fence-sitters, independents and undecided might be more inclined to vote GOP over this. Hopefully NJ voters will do the right thing in November and restore a bit of pride back into our election system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 4:04:59 PM EDT
[#23]
Here's Ann Coulter's take on the issue:
[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29143[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 5:41:19 PM EDT
[#24]
I just got back home and heard the CBS radio news take on this. They made it sound like a major victory. NO MENTION was made of NJ law--"this decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court ignored the objections of Republicans who said it was too late to switch candidates." There is no Republic in existence to defend. We truly need to restore the Constitution--time to feed the hogs. [pissed]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 5:45:08 PM EDT
[#25]
They don't call Jersey the "armpit of America" for no reason...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 5:55:42 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Why am I not surprised ???? [:(!] I knew the Democrats would get a pass. It's their SOP. Dont like the outcome of something? Whine and bitch to the courts (packed with people who think likewise) to change the rules. The reason the Democrats were so pissed at the SCOTUS in 2000 was because they intervened and stopped the Democrats and their courts from completely subverting the laws of the election. Ironic that they first seek to contest in courts, then piss and moan when the highest court in the land rules against them. Anyway, I expected this to happen. Not worked up about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 6:01:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: NO MENTION was made of NJ law That's because the NJ Supreme Court's OPINION doesn't make any mention of NJ law! How fucking sad is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 6:10:44 PM EDT
[#28]
They just violated the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS will smack them down AGAIN, just like they did the FL Supreme court-twice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 6:24:07 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Fox news (Brit Hume) reported about the two justices having given money to toricelli (before they were appointed). He also mentioned the interesting fact that democrats are trying hard to get the very much alive toricelli off of the NJ ballot, but they are trying equally hard to keep the very much dead Mink ON the hawaii ballot. Crooked bastards. You know, after hearing about the situation with the late Ms. Mink in Hawaii, and remembering the same situation with Mel Carnahan in Missouri in 2000, I've been wondering just what the Democrats are up to. Then today, it dawned on me that the Democratic Party has simply realized what the Republicans have known for years. That the only good Democrat is a dead one. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 7:40:29 PM EDT
[#30]
I agree with those who say the US Supreme Court will not let this stand, especially in the face of clear NJ election law to the contrary...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 8:11:43 PM EDT
[#31]
I talked to 3 democrats about this today and they all thought the decision was a good one.
I scratched my head and wondered how any reasonable person could come to that decision. Then it hit me. Democrats aren't reasonable people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 8:28:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups," the court ruled in a unanimous decision. Wellllll, is not that what Torricelli should have considered before VOLUNTARILY REMOVING HIS NAME FROM THE FU__ING BALLOT? If it is a voluntary decision that that scum-bag made, and this same dung heap was supported and sponsored by a particular party.... THAT'S THEIR TOUGH F-ING SHIT FOR SUPPORTING A PIECE OF GARBAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE! That's all I'uv got tu say 'bout that. The_Macallan: your gonna give yourself a heart attack man. Relax man, it _will_ be ok... --LS |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 8:37:08 PM EDT
[#33]
My state sucks. The demon-cat party thinks they can do whatever they want. The state of NJ is an enemy of freedom. Frank Lautenberg is a limosine liberal who would ban guns if he could. But here is a little glimmer of hope,......many people talking and calling into local talkshows are not buying this shit pulled today. We shall see.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2002 8:40:15 PM EDT
[#34]
Was anybody with the slightest amount of common sense suprised, by a favorable ruling for the [s]assholes[/s] Democrats, by a SC, with mostly [s]asshole[/s] Democrat judges! [rolleyes]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
