After screwing up this case so obviously, I'm positive it will be brought up again.
I don't think he'll be re-elected either, just because of this ruling.
So I don't think they will be forgotton or re-elected, either.
Posted on 11/01/2014 6:43:31 AM PDT by massmike
It's become the mother of all political clichés: Every election, we are told, is the most important of our lifetime. If our side doesn't win, it's 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, rivers and seas boiling, human-sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria – or worse.
While it's hard to rank these biennial slug-fests, given the rot that's eating away at the soul of our nation, 2014 is right up there.
Will there be any break on Obama's increasingly despotic reign during his last two years in office, or will Harry Reid and his cohorts continue to provide cover for the presidential putsch?
Most analysts are predicting the 2014 election will give Republicans a slight majority in the Senate next year. The New York Times gives the GOP a 64% chance of taking the Senate.
But nothing is guaranteed. The outcome could depend on last-minute spending, which party has the better ground game, and how much fraud the party of illegal aliens and the graveyard vote can get away with.
Starting with 45 seats, Republicans need to pick up six more to gain a bare majority. Two open seats currently held by Democrats are considered likely pick-ups. The Democratic incumbent in Louisiana will probably lose. Of the nine toss-ups, three are currently Republican seats. If Republicans hold those and take the three they're slated to win, they'll need only one of six toss-ups.
That only sounds easy. In Colorado, Republican Cory Gardner has a one-point lead over incumbent Senator Mark Udall. In Iowa, Republican Joni Ernst leads her opponent by 2.2 points. In Arkansas, the Republican challenger leads the incumbent Democrat by 2 points – all within the margin of error.
With so much at stake this year, the toss-ups could well be squeakers. In the meantime, we're getting lectures from conservatives castigating 2012 stay-at-homes.
"Why did we lose in 2012?" asks the typical e-mail I get at least daily. "Because millions of delusional, self-defeating conservatives, who were disappointed by Romney, were AWOL on Election Day, they helped to re-elect the man who's destroying our Republic.'"
This argument relieves the Republican establishment from all responsibility for nominating a clunk like Romney, and Mitt from practically throwing away the nomination by running an abysmal campaign.
Still, this year at least, voting Republican as the default position makes sense.
Unless the GOP candidate has you running for the toilet bowl (like Charlie Baker, RINO candidate for Massachusetts governor, whose bucket list includes performing a partial-birth abortion while simultaneously presiding over a same-sex wedding), conservatives should vote Republican, even if it hurts. I did in 2008 and 2012, though the experience was excruciating, I can assure you.
Let's start with a hard case – Scott Brown, former Massachusetts Senator now running for the Senate as a Republican in New Hampshire.
During his two years in the Senate, Brown (who won a special election in 2010 with Tea Party support) was a huge disappointment. His rating from the American Conservative Union was 50% – one of the lowest for any Republican Senator.
On the other hand, according to the Congressional Quarterly, his opponent, incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, voted with the president 98% of the time. She is Obama's Topo Gigio. ("Oh, Barack, I love you!") The latest CNN poll has them in a statistical dead-heat – Shaheen 49%, Brown 47%, with a margin of error plus or minus 4.
The choice isn't between an authentic conservative and a typical Democrat, but a 50% conservative and a 98% hard-core leftist. Representing conservative New Hampshire, Brown would probably have a better voting record than he did as the junior senator from the Bay State.
More importantly, he'll be part of the Republican Senate majority. That means the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee passes from Patrick Leahy (lifetime ACU rating 6%) to Charles Grassley (lifetime ACU rating 83%).
It also means no more rubber-stamping of Obama's judicial mutants – no more Sonia ("wise Latina woman") Sotomayors. Ruth Bader Ginsberg – 81, ailing and having an unnatural relationship with the Constitution – won't wait to see who's elected president in 2016, but will likely retire next year. Only a Republican Senate will stop Obama from filling the vacancy with a Ginsberg-clone 30 years her junior.
Grassley is eager to launch investigations to compliment House inquiries – including Fast and Furious and the IRS harassment of conservatives.
Conservative hero Jeff Sessions will chair the powerful Budget Committee. Expect renewed attacks on ObamaCare and proposals for a sweeping overhaul of the federal tax system.
Bob Corker (the kindest thing he can say about Obama is that he's an "unreliable ally") gets the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and John McCain will chair Armed Services. Besides a push for new weapons systems, look for hearings on Obama's blunders which helped to foster the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
With both houses in Republican hands, Obama will get writer's cramp using his veto pen. If contested programs are riders on appropriations bills, the president will have to explain why he risked shutting down the government over the Keystone Pipeline – because it's crucial to maintain our dependence on Middle East oil?
Here's how the Deadites view the prospect of a Republican Senate.
In an opinion column in the October 21 Washington Post ("The Catastrophe that a GOP-controlled Congress would bring") Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, sputters:
"What happens when they (the Republican majority in Congress) send him a bill to prevent a default on our debt at the 11th. hour, attached to a bill that ravages (reforms) Social Security? The Republican Party will gain the power to force the president to choose between impossible options."
Even though self-styled progressives think Obama hasn't moved far enough toward a Soviet America, Vanden Heuvel writes: "It is madness to suggest that little will change if Republicans take the Senate. A lot will change, and the change will be the worse for women, immigrants, workers and the environment" (feminists, illegal aliens and global-warming cultists). "A Republican Senate, working with a Republican House, will be a wrecking crew."
If only.
Still, the alternative to a GOP victory in this year's Senate elections is more judicial nominations from Hell, the continued implementation of ObamaCare (millions more losing their private insurance), a sweeping amnesty (with crime, disease, unemployment and terrorism for all), taking a civil-liberties approach to containing Ebola, and accelerating attacks on Israel by the Grand Mufti of D.C.
It will also mean that Democrats will have won three of the last four elections – sending the GOP into 2016 dispirited and disorganized.
Winston Churchill said of England's victories over the Nazis in 1942: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
I've been disappointed too often by the GOP to expect much from a Republican Congress. But the end of the beginning is better than the alternative—the unimpeded march toward the abyss of hope and change.
Those deadlines were for contesting the “qualifications of a candidate”. The other judges didn’t think it applied to contesting the election result.
You’ve got my support...good luck with that.
We gave the Republicans the House, what have they done with it?
Before that we gave them the Presidency [and the Congress], what did they do with it?
They dropped down in front of their friends across the aisle and wore holes in the knees of their slacks.
*nod* — in any case, I'm tired of their abuses.
My answer is Saxby Chambliss. He saw the writing on the wall. He has been catching hell for a few years now from constituents and he KNEW he'd lose a primary. As it is now, I owe allegiance to no one - even one for whom I voted. They have one term to get it right, and with primaries no longer a perfunctory foregone conclusion, images of Chambliss and Cantor might just get some sorely needed action. They may think they're home free when the general election comes and we resign ourselves to "hold our noses" but the bar has been raised and they'll first have to get through that primary.
So you're saying the court should have ignored the deadline for contesting an election, and instead apply the longer deadlines for challenging the qualifications of a candidate instead. I wonder if you would grant that leeway to a ruling you didn't agree with.
Anyway, what I found in that analysis you linked me to was, yes, the deadline for contesting and election was 20 days. The author found some significance that the deadline wasn't indicated in both of two paragraphs, 921 and 923, that addressed the issue. Exactly how many places does a deadline have to be listed before it becomes effective?
I found no mention the other deadlines for contesting the qualifications of a candidate, which is what the dissenting judges quoted.
Look, I want Conservative candidates as much as you do, but conspiracy theories based on omissions won't get that done. Should the GOP close it's primary? Yes. Would your choice have won if the primary was closed? Again, yes.
Apart from closing the primaries, we still have to win the general elections. Winning the electorate over to Conservative values, or at least away from the leftist vote buying, is what it will take to do that. Even if the fraud vote is a factor, we still need to win over enough voters to counter it.
That's the what. Let me know when you're ready to discuss the how.
AMEN..
VOTE Harry Reid OUT as leader of the Senate...
VOTE REPUBLICAN
Thank you for your opinion. Now, can we get to work in winning the electorate over to Conservative values?
And how are we supposed to do that without winning over the voters who keep putting them in office?
The same way Ronald Reagan did; talk over the RINOs and the LAME Stream Media.
So you are talking about winning voters over to Conservative values, right?
That's like saying, "Johnny stole $100 from me so I can't countenance him in my neighborhood; I'll let Ralph, the guy who raped my wife and killed my daughter live next door instead".
That's fallacious and you know it.
The more apt analogy is people in your camp, wearing your uniform, willfully commit an act of mass fratricide and then beg not to be put to death they promise this time they'll shoot at the enemy and not you — do you really want to keep them in your camp?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.