Skip to comments.
G.O.P. Asks Supreme Court to Void Ruling on Torricelli
New York Times ^
| 10/03/02
| TERENCE NEILAN
Posted on 10/03/2002 6:40:32 PM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-26 last
To: jwalsh07
Isn't it interesting that the NYT reporter never bothers to cite the actual legal text that you quoted. Instead he makes it sound like it's just a claim of the republicans.
That rag is so biased and corrupt, it amazes me that it is still considered an authoritative source...
21
posted on
10/03/2002 8:50:49 PM PDT
by
aquila48
To: aquila48
That rag is so biased and corrupt, it amazes me that it is still considered an authoritative source...I won't even use it to line the dove cage anymore, it offends their sensibilities.:-}
22
posted on
10/03/2002 8:53:38 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election Problem is it occoured after not before the 51st day meaing no vacancy could occur therafter. However the law also stated that a candidate could not resign after the 51st day. The court just ignored this part of the law because he had resigned and everyone knew it. There were three other places in NJ law stating 51 days and four stating 48 days but all were ignored by this stupid court.
To: kattracks
Last night Colmes made a statement that the Republicans had done the same thing in a recent election -- that is, realize that their candidate wasn't going to win and so he was replaced with a more hopeful candidate. My guess would be that if the Republicans did do this, they at least didn't violate the law.
Does anyone know what election Colmes was talking about?
To: bjcintennessee
It was Bob Franks replacing someone in the GOP primary vs.
Brett Shundler (New Jersey Gov. race)
I didn't get all the details, but did catch that the
difference was that in that case, the NJ Legislature
approved the switch
To: kattracks
Has anyone brought up the possibility of fraud charges? I'm thinking of the Jeffords jump when his contributors complained that they gave money to elect a him as a member of a specific party. He said he would give any donor money back if requested. I don't think the Torch would to his contributors. Also didn't he turn over his war chest to Lautenberg? Could be interesting.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-26 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson