you mean to get a new window to open re target=blank ?
see, the caveman/pc pic was pretty accurate
Posted on 10/02/2002 5:16:31 PM PDT by Politico2
I concur with resolute commision!
see, the caveman/pc pic was pretty accurate
Perhaps so. They may suspect that they are going to lose no matter who they put up in the race. So why not get all the real estate they can - make the issue that the Supreme Court is biased in favor of the Republicans (when we all know otherwise). This will serve, they hope, to reinforce the conception that Bush is illegitimate, blah blah blah...
I think its going to backfire; the initial court action in Bush V. Gore was done by the Democrats and the same holds true here. People know this (at least most do). People have a certain distaste for trial lawyers already and this just reinforces that opinion. Also, the see the Dems as a bunch of crybabies. Sore Losers, as it were. :^) This will hurt the DemocRATS for a long time. IMHO, of course.
McCain is also a gun-grabber. Even the pukes over at DU praise him.
< a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/761779/posts" >N.J. Supreme Court Order Violates Reasoning of Bush v. Gore (MUST READ)< /a >
Finally, we get to what's really the disagreement.
I believe it's FAR more important to win the Senate back than to have the USSC intervene again.
Remember, the Senate was taken by undemocratic means, but only because the majority of "conservatives" was such a razor thin margin. Get the vote of the public...Get a majority of them behind you....and it doesn't matter what shennanigans the the rats pull. Skating around on these 1000-vote margins and hoping for the courts to keep things fair ain't a winning strategy. It's hard, but if Republicans want to really recover this country's direction, then they've got to do it by winning bigger and better.
Look at what Bush has done with the Iraq issue. He got the country's electorate behind him, and the Dims had to fall in line behind him. It was masterful. He didn't go whining to the International Court to plead his case. He went, as Reagan used to say, "over Congress' heads to the people."
You are NEVER going to beat the Dims and run them all out of the country!! The utopia of American politics will look like the lawn of the White House today when dims were falling all over themselves to support a conservative's leadership! The nice thing about dims is that they don't really want to run the country, they just want to be in power. Bush has shown how to keep them as useful idiots.
What about the Gore question I asked?
You are tenacious, at least, yet still quite squirrelly. Obviously I prefer Bush winning. I would prefer in the future that his popular majority be large enough that his win is beyond reproach by these rogue state courts. I hope you don't wanna continue the way of the 2000 election.
N.J. Supreme Court Order Violates Reasoning of Bush v. Gore (MUST READ)
As far as who made the appointments, that is also meaningless in New Jersey. It is important to remember that, as a suburb of New York City, New Jersey is a hopeless liberal sewer, essentially owned and controlled by its very powerful teachers union and also by the mob. And that includes most of the Republican Party. Look at DiFrancesco - - he was all mobbed up and everybody knew it. That's why he didn't run for election to a full term as governor. When a decent, honorable man like Bret Schundler comes along, it just kills the thoroughly Democrat-ized Republican Party in New Jersey. Heck, the sitting Republican governor, DiFrancesco, never even endorsed Schundler!
As far as the New Jersey Supreme Court justices, they are also mobbed up and completely controlled by their Democrat masters. Anybody would have to be an idiot not to realize this, especially after today's decision. I mean, duh.
Does anybody think these scumbags would have ruled the same way if it was the Republicans who were trying to make a last-minute switch to find a better candidate to replace one who was failing in the polls? LOFL!!!
I have an added delight to this moniker ---- Since these two HATE each other, it will grate both of them whenever they hear it! HeeHee!
I'm not a constitutional expert, and I don't pretend to be, so I can't give an authoritative answer to your questions.
All I know is what the USSC did regarding the FLSC's legislating from the bench during the 2000 presidential election debacle. If I remember the 2000 FL controversy correctly, the USSC said something to the effect that the Constitution allows a state to set it's own laws governing elections for national offices, but those laws must be obeyed and enforced as written in order for the matter to remain solely a state issue. Whatever it actually said, it was obvious the court was displeased enough by the flagrant disregard for state law demonstrated by the FL court to take the issue out of it's partisan hands. I don't claim to know whether or not that action was constitutionally proper, but it was right in my own eyes.
IMHO, for what it's worth, which is no more than it's cost, it should be a matter of grave concern to the USSC that a United States Senate seat is being decided by a corrupt NJ court which just this morning showed total disregard for a clearly written state election law. It didn't rule the law unconstitutional according to either the NJ constitution or the U.S. Constitution. It simply said it would not enforce a NJ law which is still constitutionl until declared otherwise, and which represents the will of the people of NJ as expressed through their elected legislature. This is pure, unadulterated legislating from the bench since it is simply the court enacting a new law which in effect temporarily repeals an old law. In reality the judicially enacted repeal may prove NOT to be temporary because a precedent was set by the decision, a decision which may well stand.
My fervent hope is that the USSC reacts to this NJSC decision in the same manner it did to the FLSC mess.
johnrob's software has spoiled us by not requiring the quotes,
as they're auto-inserted if everything else is right.
Democrats also need emotion to survive. They need people upset to get them motovated. The more hate and anger they create, the more division, the more their base will turn out. Don't give them that emotion. They need it. Keep it cool. Keep it sane. Keep it nice and polite. If they cannot use the politics of personal destruction, emotional arguments or fights, they have nothing.
NJ Dems made their vote for their guy at primary time knowing that Toracelli was a crook. Why haven't any talking heads pointed this out?
So you don't think it was right that the USSC stopped Gore from doing his selective recounts? You think Gore should be president? The USSC is the only protection we have against one state hijacking elections.
Remember, the Senate was taken by undemocratic means, but only because the majority of "conservatives" was such a razor thin margin. Get the vote of the public...Get a majority of them behind you....and it doesn't matter what shennanigans the the rats pull.
Yes it does, as Gore and the Florida Supreme Court proved. Bush won Florida, but the Florida SC was going to allow Gore to keep doing recounts in his counties until he had enough votes and they were going to allow the military votes to be thrown out. The USSC must protect the rest of us from these abuses. How is a candidate supposed to get a majority of the people behind him if the competition is allowed to tag team him to dry up his advertising money? Forrester spent money to defeat Torricelli, and now a new guy with a fresh bank account is going to be allowed to hammer away in the media for the last six weeks of an election. The USSC must protect us from these abuses.
Skating around on these 1000-vote margins and hoping for the courts to keep things fair ain't a winning strategy.
In case you haven't noticed, Bush is president, not Gore. Gore would've won if he would've been allowed to keep manufacturing votes and throw out military votes.
It's hard, but if Republicans want to really recover this country's direction, then they've got to do it by winning bigger and better.
The parties are too even. You can't expect our candidates to have to defeat 2 or 3 consecutive candidates in the same election. That takes too much money and it isn't fair.
Look at what Bush has done with the Iraq issue. He got the country's electorate behind him, and the Dims had to fall in line behind him. It was masterful. He didn't go whining to the International Court to plead his case. He went, as Reagan used to say, "over Congress' heads to the people."
A war only happens every ten years. You can't expect a war to save us all the time. And besides, if we would've followed your advice, Gore and the Florida Supreme Court would've thrown out enough military votes to take the election in 2000 anyway and Bush would've never been president. If you never try to make your opponent play on a level playing field, you'll never win. You're opponent will always cheat enough to win. You have to make him play fair.
You are NEVER going to beat the Dims and run them all out of the country!!
I don't want to run them out of the country. I want to make them play fair, since it seems they have no desire to play fair.
The utopia of American politics will look like the lawn of the White House today when dims were falling all over themselves to support a conservative's leadership!
I agree. That's why it is necessary to fight them with every weapon we have, including the courts when they break the law.
The nice thing about dims is that they don't really want to run the country, they just want to be in power.
What's the difference?
Bush has shown how to keep them as useful idiots.
Because of 9-11. The American people are the same people that elected Clinton twice. Don't expect them to always see the idiocy of the Democrats.
You are tenacious, at least, yet still quite squirrelly. Obviously I prefer Bush winning. I would prefer in the future that his popular majority be large enough that his win is beyond reproach by these rogue state courts. I hope you don't wanna continue the way of the 2000 election.
Yes I do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When the Dems break the law, hold them accountable!!!!!!!!!!That's how we keep evil at bay. If we would've followed your advice, we would never win anything. When a bully knows you won't fight back, he has no incentive to quit stealing your lunch money.
Many know they've already had a choice. Now the choice is who the DNC says they'll have to vote for. Many won't care for that. They say Toricelli should have been taken out a long time ago.
I read a thread where the news was asking NJ voters what they thought. All said it was too late, because the law is the law. These were average people, average NJ voters - not liberal Democrat activists.
Though it probably is not the case here, sometimes the fact that there is a perceived weak incumbent can provide the impetus for a newcomer to embark upon a campaign, often at great personal sacrifice. In a state such as NJ, which hasn't had a republican senator since the Nixon administration, such a scenario is not that farfetched. A state with high-population inner cities such as Newark, Elizabeth and Camden, and with a strong union presence (particularly the teachers union) makes it difficult for republicans to win state-wide elections. Seeing a corrupt incumbent with a potential scandal brewing might give a reluctant multi-millionaire the incentive to invest his own money into a campaign. Pinch-hitting for the dirty incumbent with a clean replacement at the last minute is unfair and illegal.
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.