Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NJ Supreme Court Hearing Live Thread
New Jersey Public TV ^ | 10/02/02 | TonyInOhio

Posted on 10/02/2002 7:04:20 AM PDT by TonyInOhio

New Jersey Public TV is carrying this hearing live. Click on Watch Live Online, and post what you hear, here.


Tony


TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: demonrats; election; fixisin; forrester; fraud; greasetheskids; igotyourparadigm; lautenberg; ratcrimes; steal; stealingelection; toricelli
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,201-1,2201,221-1,2401,241-1,260 ... 1,281-1,293 next last
To: mlo
Aren't the Dims playing this rather dumb? Why couldn't they just leave Torch on the ballot and have the governor announce that if Torch wins and refuses the seat he will appoint someone else until the next election?

I think that the Democrats are simply trying to maximize their chances of winning. You're question assumes that Torricelli has a snowball's chance of winning, which even the Dems fully admitted he does not.

A write-in for Lautenberg will be too confusing for 10-20% of the Democrat base in NJ. Another 10-20% of Democrats will be unaware that Torricelli is no longer running. Still another 10-20% will vote for Torricelli because they like him or because they have no idea who Lautenberg is. Unfortunately for the Dems, they've pandered a bit too much to the totally disfunctional, illiterate and down-right ignorant.

Leave Torricelli on the Ballot. Let the Democrats play by the rules like everyone else. That's fair!

1,221 posted on 10/02/2002 11:47:07 AM PDT by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1214 | View Replies]

To: Smedley
I think that the Democrats are simply trying to maximize their chances of winning. You're question assumes that Torricelli has a snowball's chance of winning, which even the Dems fully admitted he does not.

No it doesn't. It assumes that all the Democrat voters would know that voting for Torricelli is really a vote for some other Democrat.

1,222 posted on 10/02/2002 11:51:05 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1221 | View Replies]

To: Smedley
Leave Torricelli on the Ballot. Let the Democrats play by the rules like everyone else. That's fair!

My pie in the sky dream is if the NJSC came back and agreed to take toricelli's name off the ballot, but refused to put lautenberg's on. That would be true justice.

I know it could only happen in a parallel universe, but that would be sweet.

1,223 posted on 10/02/2002 11:53:35 AM PDT by Betty Jane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1221 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Wouldn't work, and the Carnahan analogy doesn't apply. Remember, a lot of people voting for Carnahan did so out of sympathy. I am sure a lot of those Republican soccer mom types were all weepy and felt so special when they voted for him. There would be zero "sympathy vote" factor in favor of a Democrat who just quit the race in disgrace.
1,224 posted on 10/02/2002 11:54:30 AM PDT by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1222 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
The wise decision here would be for the NJSC to simply state that the deadline has passed for Torricelli to withdraw his name off the ballot

This would be the least disruptive remedy and is the correct decision under the law. Let the ballot stand and have a write-in campaign for Lautenburg. Torricelli's position on the ballot does not belong to him and he cannot withdraw it. He made a committment to the people of New Jersey, and the court should force him to honor it.

1,225 posted on 10/02/2002 11:55:44 AM PDT by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1205 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
So what has happened so far?...JFK
1,226 posted on 10/02/2002 11:57:40 AM PDT by BADROTOFINGER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1225 | View Replies]

To: rstevens
Use of campaign money is illegal for uses not in conjunction with campaigning.

You know that, and I know that, but when have the Dems ever worried about legalities when it comes to campaign finances?

1,227 posted on 10/02/2002 11:58:40 AM PDT by McLynnan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1164 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER
So what has happened so far?

Arrg! You don't wanna know!

Looks like the NJ Supremes are trying to find a way to give the 'Rats what they want. I would not be at all surprised to see them go completely round-heeled for the 'Rats and put Lautenburg on the ballot. Then Forrester has to win two elections before he can join the Senate.

1,228 posted on 10/02/2002 12:00:24 PM PDT by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1226 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Wouldn't work, and the Carnahan analogy doesn't apply. Remember, a lot of people voting for Carnahan did so out of sympathy. I am sure a lot of those Republican soccer mom types were all weepy and felt so special when they voted for him. There would be zero "sympathy vote" factor in favor of a Democrat who just quit the race in disgrace.

Sympathy is beside the point, it's not the motive it's the process I'm pointing out. In MO they voted for the Dem out of sympathy, in NJ they vote because they are Democrats. There is no doubt that Torch would have won this if he didn't have the ethical baggage. The voters in NJ just didn't want HIM. They did want a Dem.

Now the fact is that most people in NJ see this for what it is, a cheat, and are unlikely to support it. But if the Dims had simply recognized that the were too late to change the names and the governor had made an announcement that if Torch's name did win he would appoint someone else until the next election, then all the Dem voters could have voted next to Torch's name without problem.

1,229 posted on 10/02/2002 12:00:58 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1224 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Somebody said something about one of the justices donating $1k to the Torched. Did he recuse himself?...JFK
1,230 posted on 10/02/2002 12:02:49 PM PDT by BADROTOFINGER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1228 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER
justices donating $1k...

Two of them did. Both participated in oral arguments. I don't know if they will recuse themselves from the voting. Probably will if it looks like it is in the bag for the 'Rats.

Never vote 'Rat. Not for President, Senate, Congress, Assembly, County Freeholder, DA, Town Council, School Board, or Dog Catcher. Never vote 'Rat.

1,231 posted on 10/02/2002 12:06:22 PM PDT by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1230 | View Replies]

To: mlo
This idea was not clear from your first post, but now I see what you're talking about. Something analagous to the Carnahan/Ashcroft thing.

However, unlike Carnahan the Torch is way down in the polls, there's no sympathy vote and Forrester doesn't have Ashcroft's controversy. Add to this the aforementioned mental deficiencies of the Dem base ...

1,232 posted on 10/02/2002 12:11:00 PM PDT by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1222 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry T. Albin:

ALBIN, BARRY T
EAST BRUINSWICK, NJ 08816
WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER

   TORRICELLI, ROBERT G
    VIA TORRICELLI FOR U S SENATE INC
02/23/1999 1000.00 99020070166

1,233 posted on 10/02/2002 12:18:20 PM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1220 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader
well they fixed the Florida Democratic Governers primary.
1,234 posted on 10/02/2002 12:18:36 PM PDT by scannell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Who appointed these a$$holes?
1,235 posted on 10/02/2002 12:21:17 PM PDT by Lightnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1220 | View Replies]

To: Smedley
We should start calling Lautenberg the Rosie Ruiz of politics. You remember Rosie, she was the woman who jumped into the Boston Marathon at the end and crossed the finish line without running the race.

-PJ

1,236 posted on 10/02/2002 12:23:15 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1232 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
Bump for later reading...
1,237 posted on 10/02/2002 12:25:33 PM PDT by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
any other answer disenfranchises all MILITARY personnel as well as the mail in voters!

I just called NJSC hotline and said I was a US Serviceman that voted for Torricelli (lie for theoretical purposes) and if I knew that Forrester would have been running against Lautenberg I would have voted for Forrester because I dislike Lautenberg as much as Torricelli does. Then I said what about my vote that I want to change to Forrester if you change the slate to include Lautenberg and not Torricelli. She said she would forward my concern to the clerk.

1,238 posted on 10/02/2002 12:25:50 PM PDT by scannell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1205 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Why couldn't the Democrats just have Lautenberg be a write-in candidate? No need to reprint the ballots and it'd be perfectly legal.

Makes perfect sense, except for one point. You need to remember we're talking about Rats, the folks who don't even know how to punch a chad. What makes you think they'd know how to write in a name.

1,239 posted on 10/02/2002 12:32:31 PM PDT by Marathoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1169 | View Replies]

To: ELS
I know. I was just kind of wishing aloud that we could have someone like him to argue this case. :-)
1,240 posted on 10/02/2002 12:35:12 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,201-1,2201,221-1,2401,241-1,260 ... 1,281-1,293 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson