Posted on 10/02/2002 5:16:31 PM PDT by Politico2
Forrester Statement On New Jersey Supreme Court Decision
(TRENTON, OCTOBER 2) – U.S. Senate candidate Doug Forrester tonight issued the following statement:
“Today, the people of New Jersey lost. The Torricelli-Lautenberg machine’s disregard for the rule of law, fair elections and the people of New Jersey will, once again, make our great state the butt of national jokes.
“The good people of New Jersey understand what has transpired over the past few days. A few powerbrokers read public opinion polls and concluded that I was going to beat Bob Torricelli, and decided to change the rules of the game. The good people of New Jersey will not allow these political games to win the day.
“Today, this election became an election between, on the one hand, those who seek to restore New Jersey’s reputation and, on the other hand, those few powerbrokers who will say anything and do anything to rig the system to their advantage. I will continue my fight to restore dignity and honor the office of the United States Senate. And with the people of New Jersey, we will win this fight.
“Unfortunately, the New Jersey Supreme Court has now decided that New Jersey law, as written, should not apply to this election. Their decision is flawed.
“We will pursue an appeal of this matter to the Supreme Court of the United States, to ensure that the men and women of our military will not be disenfranchised and that the rule of law will be upheld.
“This is a fight that the Torricelli-Lautenberg machine began when it decided it could not win this election within the rules provided by state law.
“Regardless of the outcome in the courts, I will continue my fight to put the interests of the people of New Jersey before politics.
“The Torricelli—Lautenberg machine has failed to fight to strengthen our national security. The Torricelli – Lautenberg machine has consistently voted to cut defense and intelligence spending.
The Torricelli – Lautenberg machine voted against a national missile defense system to protect American families and our allies. The Torricelli—Laugtenberg machine has failed to clean more than 19 of New Jersey’s 132 Superfund toxic waste sites. The Torricelli—Lautenberg machine has consistently voted for higher taxes and against a Balance Budget Amendment. And under the Torricelli – Lautenberg machine, New Jersey has remained dead last among the states in getting a return on the tax dollars we send to Washington meaning our hardworking families continue to bear an enormous tax burden.
“These issues continue to confront us. These are the issues I have been speaking about since I entered this race. Theses are the issues I will continue to speak about until Election Day.
“Enough is enough. I will continue to stand against the Torricelli-Lautenberg machine. Hang on, New Jersey – help is on the way!”
-- 30 --
Paid for by Forrester 2002, Inc.
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.