Forrester Statement On New Jersey Supreme Court Decision

Forrester 2002 | 10/2/2002 | Forrester 2002

[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.

[Mollygal]

yes indeed - these two hate each other BIG time - and the Torch is being double crossed here...Torch said he will drop out as long as Lautenburg is not in...and Lautenberg said in public that Torch has no guts and he will cut his "BALLs" off...lol

this Lautenberg fellow is one nasty bitter old fart, god help us if we get someone like him in the senate...but then again, we have KKK-Byrd in the RATs...imagine David Duke is a senator for the reps...and yet KKK-Byrd is called as the dean of the senate - amazing...KKK-Byrd said - this Torrenberg machine - WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!!!

[jdontom]

Great Idea...Bumped and donated

Thanks for the Link

I feel better now!

[Redleg Duke]

Well, by God, we better dig up Ike's body and execute him, right?

[Redleg Duke]

Well, by God, we better dig up Ike's body and execute him, right?

[Dianna]

Here is the language from the Constitution (section4)

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

Does this cover it clear enough?

[Carry_Okie]

This could have been a lot better.

My opinion is that he should have stuck to the point at hand because it is the highest opportunity for visibility it will ever have, to wit:

Forrester should have repeated the fact that military ballots have already been mailed and some have already been received as cast and that these ballots are invalidated when a new name is printed on the remaining ballots. He should have pointed out that those voters decided between himself and Torricelli, and that Lautenberg might have received more votes because of the taint of corruption on Torricelli.

That way, Forrester looks like a "good guy," in that he is willing to let the Slave Party get more votes in the name of what's right, and he is staying on the topic at hand instead of turning it into a campaign opportunity to lump Lautenberg in with Torricelli (which won't stick as well as his handlers would imagine).

[RedBloodedAmerican]

"The excellence of every government is its adaptation to the state of those to be governed by it." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:487

[nutmeg]

Excellent statement by Forrester. But will the sheeple pay attention to it...?

[Dave S]

Is Forrester really so bad that the only candidate he can beat is a proven cheater? I mean, geez, I hate the SCONJ's ruling too, and it's sad, but if Forrester had an ounce of worth it seems he should be up to taking on all comers...right?

So now Forrester has to go out and hit more tax cuts, a ban on abortion, elimination of the Brady Bill and all kinds of conservative dogma and the people of this heavily democratic state will just fly to the polls to vote for him. They just need to be told the truth and they will be converted. (SARCASM OFF)

[Dave S]

Chief Justice Rehnquist has written an opinion piece regarding this matter and, not surprisingly, thought it was a terrible decision. It's posted on FR - sorry - don't know how to link

I hope that doesnt mean he has to recuse himself from the case.

[Torie]

I am not sure. What is the statute for electors, and how does that read. Not that I will be "sure" after reading it. Caution, thy name is a lawyer.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Not bad. But six of the judges were appointed by a Republican.

This doesn't really count for much since the late 80's, IMO. The leftists know that control of the congress and educational system is nice, control of the media necessary, but control of the judiciary is essential. When they fail to make the case for leftist interpretation of the constitution in the media or in congress, the courts are their last resort. WE the people have been gamed badly over the past 20 years, and WE the people had damned well better wake up!

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Not bad. But six of the judges were appointed by a Republican.

Those were appointed by a Bob Michel type Republican. You know the type, go along to get long fetch and step yasir nosir please don't beat me Democrat Massa.

Hell Bob Micheal is best known for his damn singing, just like he was some house slave from Gone With the Wind.

[cinFLA]

I really do not understand why the three Republicans did not cast dissenting votes on this. Anyone have a clue?

Just a guess - they would not be reappointed?

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Tomorrow morning Lautenberg is going to wake up and think he married Torricelli and they decided to hyphenate their names.

Torricelli – Lautenberg machine get used to hearing it.

[section9]

I thought the statement was excellent.

Forrester is assuming that the SCOTUS probably doesn't want to come near this stinker in the middle of an election. There is a good reason why they are already trying to tie Torricelli around Lautenberg's neck.

Someone raised a valid point: remember, Lautenberg was the third choice. Menendez and Pallone bowed out. Despite the Torch's wishes, the guys in Trenton had no one to go to but the Lout!

While I agree that Forrester should not countenance this brazen illegality, he should recognize that in all probability, Lautenberg is now his opponent. So, Forrester has to saddle Frank with enough baggage to make it hard for the latter to climb out of the hole Torricelli dug for him.

Oh, and challenge Frank to as many debates as humanly possible. Just avoid, like the plague, any debates sponsored by the NAACP. I saw parts of that Kennedy debate and I was filled with more than enough revulsion.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

You must be mistaken Whitman for a Republican. Bush was stupid enough to give that idiot an appointment and that has already bitten him twice.

Roger that! Whitman was/is a fool. her claim to fame is that, in a rare moment of licidity, she realized that cutting taxes during an economic downturn would stimulate an economic recovery -- which is exactly what happened. But beyond that, she did nothing. The 'pubs loved her for a while, until it became clear that she was a RINO like McVain. GW made a mistake in appointing her to the EPA. Time to lose the loser.

[Dianna]

Here it is (Article 2, section 1)

[Each State] shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector

They sound pretty darn similar to me. (That isn't the whole section, just to be clear. But the rest concerns "personal" requirements for electors)

Of course, with SCOFLA never having had responded to the question, I don't know that there is any legal standing as far as being a precedent or something of that nature.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Excellent statement. My anger at this Rat slapping the law in the face AGAIN knows no bounds.

Don't forget your 1960's PolSci101. To a leftist, laws are MEANT to be challenged and overturned -- if they interfere with the leftist's agenda. This is the main advantage that they have over conservatives -- who prefer to abide by the law, and who are ill prepared for and react poorly to these types ofchallenges.

[Clemenza]

Christie Witless Sucked. (RINOS managed to grow the state budget during Witless/Donny-D's terms more than the dims ever *dreamed* of.)

Patakifeller and the RINOs in the New YorkState Senate make the Whitman/DiFrancesco family look like deficit hawks in comparison. Spending in this state has gone up at a faster rate than under Mario Cuomo. Pataki has thus far avoided significant tax increases, but someday, down the line...