Posted on 10/02/2002 5:16:31 PM PDT by Politico2
I'm curious if Lautenberg will debate him. He seemed rather senile to me in his interview today. I suspect the rats are just using him for name recognition and will replace him should he win.
it'll work just fine for the 75% of the population that couldn't identify the decade the civil war occurred in ...
Why did the idiot Repub lawyer not bring this up in front of the SCONJ and make them address it? We DO have to fight them in the courts, but it should start with at least showing up in the State Court. Did you see any clips of the Repub lawyer? "Uh...um...well..." He sucked! (Obviously)
N.J. Supreme Court Order Violates Reasoning of Bush v. Gore (MUST READ) Supreme Court of the United States ^ | December 12, 2000 | Chief Justice RehnquistPosted on 10/02/2002 6:11 PM Central by Agrippa
The N.J. Supreme Court's decision to replace Torricelli on the ballot despite the New Jersey statute to the contrary plainly violates the reasoning of the concurring opinion (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) in Bush v. Gore. The Bush v. Gore concurring opinion held that where the Constitution entrusts election regulation to the state legislature (as was the case there and is also the case with congressional elections pursuant to the Times, Places and Manner Clause of Article I, Section 4), a state court cannot lawfully depart from the legislative scheme. These sentences best capture the heart of the concurring opinion:
"[T]he text of the election law itself, and not just its interpretation by the courts of the States, takes on an independent significance. . . . [T]he clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail."
While it doesn't have the force of law, the concurring opinion should be very persuasive to a federal district or circuit court and even to the U.S. Supreme Court itself. Surprisingly, it was not cited at the hearing today. (Not that it would have mattered, as the fix was in.) I hope the Republican legal team is prepared with this argument for the federal courts.
Remember, the Democrats will do anything, ANYTHING, to win.
Thank you Dianna! I was thinking about this today and meant to ask if anyone could fill in the blanks.
I do recall that first decision was 9-0.
I think they made a mistake in not choosing Palmer.
What have they got to be excited about? You're not going to vote Dem (I'd hope) and I'm not going to vote Dem no matter what we discuss here. If they got ecstatic every time conservatives disagree on an issue, they wouldn't be the sour-pussed complainers they are.
We both agree that winning the election againt whomever is a good thing. I just believe that winning in the polls will seriously damage the Dems, while "winning" in the courts will actually be used by the Demonrats to undermine OUR credibility like they have harped on the "unelected" Bush even still.
Well, for the sake of fair elections I think it's more important to win this court battle than to win that Senate seat. I think this never-ending election chaos must end and the USSC needs to send a clear message to the states that this crap isn't going to stand when it comes to a seat in the presidency, the U.S. Senate, or the U.S. House of Representatives. These seats affect all of us in the nation. One state can't be allowed to hijack our federal government.
And to answer your sophomoric polemic: No I do not want to "hand them the court system" too.
What about the Gore question I asked?
Not only Doug, but the entire GOP should use this as perfect example of the corruption of the DimRAT Party nationwide.
Why didn't the RAT ethics commitee run the Torch out of the Senate? Power over principle.
Why are the Senate RATs blocking all judicial nominations? Because with an ethical judiciary, they will not be able to pull crap like this.
What happens if you keep electing RATs? The corruption and sleaze levels continue to rise.
And the GOP base needs to keep harping on the Senate RINOs about how they let the RATs run the Senate into the sewer pit it now is without uttering a peep.
He only had one day to prepare. He was probably the only one that was within a day's driving distance that had a chance to go up. I applaud him for trying. It took a lot of guts. No lawyer would want to have to immediately be thrown on nationwide television to debate the fate of the Senate on just a few hours of preparation.
N.J. Supreme Court Order Violates Reasoning of Bush v. Gore (MUST READ) Supreme Court of the United States ^ | December 12, 2000 | Chief Justice Rehnquist Posted on 10/02/2002 6:11 PM Central by Agrippa The N.J. Supreme Court's decision to replace Torricelli on the ballot despite the New Jersey statute to the contrary plainly violates the reasoning of the concurring opinion (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) in Bush v. Gore. The Bush v. Gore concurring opinion held that where the Constitution entrusts election regulation to the state legislature (as was the case there and is also the case with congressional elections pursuant to the Times, Places and Manner Clause of Article I, Section 4), a state court cannot lawfully depart from the legislative scheme. These sentences best capture the heart of the concurring opinion: "[T]he text of the election law itself, and not just its interpretation by the courts of the States, takes on an independent significance. . . . [T]he clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail." While it doesn't have the force of law, the concurring opinion should be very persuasive to a federal district or circuit court and even to the U.S. Supreme Court itself. Surprisingly, it was not cited at the hearing today. (Not that it would have mattered, as the fix was in.) I hope the Republican legal team is prepared with this argument for the federal courts.
So you're an A-One lawyer huh? Congratualtions.
:-}
Here's my blue collar reading of their learned opinion.
We make the law based on how we feel and we are not bound by elected legislator's or the people that elected them. After all, we are the creme de la creme and you are simply pissants.
How'd I do Counselor?
"I'm following the wishes of the people that elected me as their Republican candidate. Lautenberg is following in Torricelli's footsteps."
You can't win any game when you're playing by the rules and they aren't. And once the rules of the game are thrown out, you're not playing a game.
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.