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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 1,281-1,293 next last
To: rintense
More like what's in the RAT's best interest. Finally, somebody gets to speak for Forrester.
To: Alberta's Child
PROUD to be a resident of Somerset County! :) Hey, if I have to live in NJ, I picked the right place. Actually, Bush only won Somerset by a few points (must have been some cheating going on), but Hunterdon was a landslide, like 70/30.
Doug Forrester lawyers up!
462
posted on
10/02/2002 8:29:22 AM PDT
by
agrace
To: hchutch
Just thought you would like to know that Republican consultant Alex Calistanos (sp?) was on Fox and used the term
"BAIT AND SWITCH!!"Somebody at the RNC MUST be reading these threads!!!
To: Jimer
If necessary, the Mob will finance it.
There is no mob in New Jersey.
The construction industry and waste haulers will be happy to pick up the tab though.
464
posted on
10/02/2002 8:29:29 AM PDT
by
dead
To: Psalm 73; dubyaismypresident; Congressman Billybob
Pinging Congressman Billy Bob! We have a disenfranchised voter on aisle six! Will this help your filing the appeal with SCOTUS?
To: joyce11111
GOP says voters have a choice NOW. Justices too stupid to figure this out. Justices saying keeping Torch on the ballot is a fruad ????!!! LOL
To: twyn1
Great show.... I'm getting the DVDs for the last three seasons and thank you Rush, for that shameless plug! ;-) Needless to say, life in New Jersey is stranger than fiction.
To: Black Agnes
Thanks, let's see how it goes. I'll start working on a suggested "fax vote".
To: blackdog
HAHA, Great idea! Anyone got a fax number?
To: Don'tMessWithTexas
I think there are Seven.
To: goldstategop
You know, if the GOP made an argument to replace a perceived losing candidate nominated earlier in the primary on grounds of a deficit in the polls, it'd be laughed out of the courthouse for even making the argument and being subjected to national scorn for trying to "fix" an election. Well then, why isn't it happening to the Democrats? That's basically what they're doing here and its all self-interested partisanship, not principle.
Because the american media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC.
Same (and only) reason Clinton stayed in office.
To: pittsburgh gop guy
But I thought the Attorney Generall said that the Democrats should pay for it since they are the ones seeking "relief". So that will make it o.k. according to the AG, the Dems. buy the courts and the election? Voters will see this as "fair" if the Dems. pay $$$?
To: Peach
Just called. Said I can't believe they are really hearing this. Said it was like throwing a forward pass, and then saying, Oh, I didn't like the way I threw that, let me throw it again. It stinks."
To: 1Old Pro
The governor has already made his choice - it's Lautenberg. I saw it on TV last night.
To: Psalm 73
See #303.
I hope someone in the Republican Party is ready to move on this VERY QUICKLY if Lautenberg ends up on the ballot.
To: mwl1
Just called and told them it's outrageous we have to pay for mistakes democrats have made.
Person wasn't really helpful.
To: 1Old Pro
The reason they don't "have a choice" is because the polls have shown they chose the republican and the dems want another shot.
To: Howlin
Howlin, I'm looking for your help here. Just got home for a few minutes and have to go back out (darn it). A previous thread in FR mentioned that the NJSC was polling on a nationwide basis regarding this matter. I called from my car phone and spoke with someone who is taking calls. Their # is 609 292 4837. Please spread the word and the number (if it hasn't already been spread around). THANK YOU!
478
posted on
10/02/2002 8:31:11 AM PDT
by
Peach
To: VRWC_minion
The current question of ths statute that provides for filling a vacancy within 30 days implies another statute would allow an election within 30 days. Therefore NJ has one statute requiring an election within 30 days and another statute that limits it to 51 days. It implies that 30 days is previously recognized as adequate time to conduct an election.Wasn't that 51 days statute added in order to conform to some FEDERAL law?
To: MamaLucci
GOP lawyer stumbling a bit, justices keep interrupting him.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson