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 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,281-1,293 next last
To: dubyagee
The majority of the people in this country are too clueless to see it. 8 * (

That is the whole problem!

The majority of this country watches very little news and what news they watch is on NBC, CBS or ABC! They never get the whole story, only what Matt Rat, Katie Cutie and the others want them to know, which is only their agendas.

621 posted on 10/02/2002 8:47:38 AM PDT by dhfnc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Kaisersrsic
Forrester's lawyer is not doing well.

I think he's doing what most people would do, find it unbelievable how stupid and partisan the justices are.

622 posted on 10/02/2002 8:47:52 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: rintense
HA! I got to your post about 5 seconds after posting mine. :)
623 posted on 10/02/2002 8:47:54 AM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Kaisersrsic
Forrester's attorney should have said the N.J Supreme Court had NO jurisdiction to hear the case since the deadline for a replacement candidate passed. The latest the Rats could have named a replacement was Sept. 16th and now its Oct. 2nd!!!
624 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:05 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
This is a tactic that reeks of one of the sleaziest examples of corporate misconduct - deceptive "bait and switch" campaigning.

We have become a banana republic. Election laws don't mean anything - if you are a democrat that is - and the judiciary is as crooked as can be. Our country is going down the tubes. I am so ashamed.

625 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:07 AM PDT by Wphile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: Kaisersrsic
It is hard to appear intelligent if the argument that "what they are doing is clearly illegal" is completely set aside.

We are taught to rely on the law, if you can't argue the law, you're left to look like a bumbling idiot.
626 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:13 AM PDT by KsSunflower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
You realize, of course, that she was appointed to the bench by another nominal republican, Gov. Christie Whitman. Of the five justices Whitman appointed to the bench, two are Democrats, one is an independent, one is a Republican and one is this "republican". When Dem McGreevey got in, one of his first acts as governor was, of course, to appoint a DEMOCRAT to the Supreme Court. At least the Dems know who elected them and what they expect.
627 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:17 AM PDT by laconic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
LOL, these justices say why can't we re-write laws.

Judges asking if they allow it this time how could they "safeguard" against future elections having candidates drop out due to being low in the polls? This was NOT asked as if they would rule against the dems, but asked in a way as they want to make this election the exception.

628 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:22 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: dubyagee
bump2
629 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:23 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: dhfnc
NO - ONLY DEMOCRATS HAVE RIGHTS

More precisely: Only Democrats have RIGHTS and Republicans have what's LEFT.

630 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:24 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: Kaisersrsic
This guys partner is up next. I hope he's better. Hell, it's clear to all of us that the SCONJ is completely disregarding the law and rewritting it. It will go to the SCOTUS because of this...

You just KNOW that the White House is steaming right now and discussing strategy as we type.

631 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:26 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak
I need a drink!

Make mine a double and hold the 'fatal defect'!

632 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:45 AM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
This is SO sad.

This is the way the game is played. We have to live whit it and defeat it.

Here is the game their game plan as I see it.


  1. Lautenberg  gets nomination
  2. Supreme court is a slam dunk
  3. Lautenberg will be on ballot
  4. Lautenberg will win
  5. Lautenberg will resign in Sept 2003
  6. The torch will be appointed to replace him.
  
  Right now it looks like I am 2 out of 6.

I hope I am not batting 1000


633 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:47 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: justshe
This guy is only 1/2 of the team. There is another atty who will address the federal issue.

I hope he has some slam dunk arguments for these clown justices.

634 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:58 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: jackbill
It's like the Menendez brothers killing their parents and then asking the court for mercy because they are orphans.

I would love to see the Pubbie attorney use that analogy.

635 posted on 10/02/2002 8:49:04 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I hope the Pubbie lawyer holds his own, but I have a feeling the Pubs' are holding back their big guns for a likely round two. If the Dems lose, they'll appeal; if the Pubs lose, they'll appeal...
636 posted on 10/02/2002 8:49:07 AM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: Freeper 007
Get ready for an appeal to the USSC

That's a bad move, in my view. The spin would be: 'Pubs ask USSC to "award" Senate seat to Forrester (and by a 5-4 vote, no doubt). Just go after Lautenberg on the merits as a representative of the corrupt NJ political system - judges included.

637 posted on 10/02/2002 8:49:13 AM PDT by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Sheesh, Who cares what other states do? This is a NJ issue. Grrr!
638 posted on 10/02/2002 8:49:29 AM PDT by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: McLynnan
Hope I'm not repeating something already on this thread, but I heard on Fox earlier that two of the Justices have contributed $1,000 each to the Torch. Shouldn't that be automatic grounds for recusal?
639 posted on 10/02/2002 8:50:08 AM PDT by Lightnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: agrace
Judges can overturn laws. Apparently, these judges don't think there's any need to address the reasons for the laws, the intent of the legislatures, fairness to absentee voters, the importance of the primary elections, etc.
640 posted on 10/02/2002 8:50:15 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 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