Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George F. Will: Rule-bending trend
The Sacramento Bee ^ | Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Thursday, October 3, 2002 | George F. Will

Posted on 10/03/2002 4:57:39 PM PDT by greydog

Edited on 04/12/2004 5:45:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON -- About two hours after Sen. Robert Torricelli's weepy press conference, in which he -- a liberal, hence nimble at victim-mongering -- proclaimed himself a victim of America's defect ("When did we become such an unforgiving people?"), the presses of the Democratic Party's newsletter, The New York Times, were printing an editorial exercise in situational ethics.


(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: georgewill; lautenberg; njsupremecourt; torricelli
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: fone
I believe by law the state's governor chooses a replacement.
41 posted on 10/03/2002 7:58:40 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: fone; dead
I was thinking of that earlier. If the Torch "won" (ballots remain as is) then Lautenburg could just be appointed? Maybe? Wonder what the NJ law is regarding that scenario...

Well, that seems pretty speculative to me. Seems to me that if one Robert Toricelli were to win (yeah, right), then he's Won the Election... The dems don't get to appoint Lautenberg in his place, Torch WOULD BE the Senator.

Regardless, it just seems to me that the Democrats argued in Missouri that the Ballot was not "vacant" even if the candidate was dead.

Whereas in New Jersey, they want to "take a mulligan" even when the Candidate is still alive (biologically, that is).

Reeking self-interested double-standard.

42 posted on 10/03/2002 8:06:05 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: copycat
I disagree that the law is silent. So does George Will. So do I.
43 posted on 10/03/2002 8:17:55 PM PDT by Jonathon Spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; DB
Hmmmm...
44 posted on 10/03/2002 8:29:21 PM PDT by fone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fone
Wonder what the NJ law is regarding that scenario...

I'm not sure that matters anymore.

45 posted on 10/03/2002 8:29:30 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
Very well said - I think I learned something - that the reason more Republicans aren't corrupt is because the media is more watchful and critical of them.

I wanted to believe that perhaps they were a bit more ethical because of their conservative nature, but I now tend to believe you are more right. I can't believe Bush and Ashcroft let the Clinton and their cronies get away with what they did. Absolutely disgraceful.

It makes it easier for future governmental officials to bend the law.

BTW - whatever happened to the rule of law?
46 posted on 10/03/2002 9:26:22 PM PDT by M. Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: greydog
...the Democratic Party's newsletter, The New York Times...

I always wondered who the NYT's parent company was....

47 posted on 10/03/2002 9:32:40 PM PDT by TheGrimReaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greydog
The N.J.S.C. broke the law. These justices did not interpret the written law, but vacated the actual words and intent of the legislative branch that passed it and the governor who signed it. Blackrobe tyranny starts with such corruption and has run amuck for 70 years in the name of liberalism.

Fascism is simply corrupt socialism, aka Democrat Party of the 21st Century. Power at ant cost. The Politburo is in control and thriving under the corrupt theory of a "living Constitution".

48 posted on 10/03/2002 9:42:00 PM PDT by SevenDaysInMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fone
"boo-freaking-hoo!"

ROTFLOL!! Oooooh! I forgot about that!!
49 posted on 10/03/2002 10:00:12 PM PDT by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
>>BTW - whatever happened to the rule of law?<<<

Although deteriorating over the last 100 years or so, IMO the proverbial nail in the coffin was the Impeachment fiasco for der slickmeister.

When felonious perjury is nationally dismissed, when we are unable to define IS, and ‘oral sex’ performed on the “president” of the United States becomes a topic of the evening news (after all, it isn’t really sex you know)...

The death of the Rule of Law becomes inevitable -- much to our chagrin.

50 posted on 10/04/2002 4:28:20 AM PDT by fone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SevenDaysInMay
>>>Blackrobe tyranny starts with such corruption and has run amuck for 70 years in the name of liberalism. <<<

Agreed, but I am curious about your choice of the demarcation line of 70 years? Something in the early 30's = FDR?

51 posted on 10/04/2002 4:33:17 AM PDT by fone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
Rule of law is an ideal we should all strive for, but I am afraid it goes against human nature. Some people obey rules (and laws) because it is the right thing to do, other obey because they are afraid of the consequences if they should disobey. For the second group there is always the weighing of the benefits and cost over obeying the rules.

One test for which type of person you are is this word problem. Say you are driving in the middle of the desert. You can see many miles in all directions. There is absolutely no one around. Then you come to a cross road. The road you are on has a stop sign. Now, you can see down both directions of the cross road and there is no traffic. Do you stop, or do you just drive right on through.

The rules (law) says you should stop first. I would be willing to bet if you had a secret camera filming this intersection, most would stop, but I am just as sure there are those that will do the calculations and decide there is no “cost” to disobey this rule, and will continue without stopping.

So for most of us, doing the right thing is enough to keep us honest, but for some there needs to be a penalty for breaking the rules, and that is what is missing in politics today. There are very few that are held accountable, and that is where I hold the suppose free press accountable. However, the lack of coverage from the media does not absolve us the voters of our responsibility to hold the politicians to a high standard, and I think as Republicans we do a better job then Democrats, but even we are not perfect in this regard.

And so to your question, what happen to the Rule of Law, it is there, as always, it just has to be enforced.

52 posted on 10/04/2002 5:41:44 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 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