Skip to comments.
GOP asks Supreme Court to decide NJ ballot issue - GOP lawyers warn of election-year shenanigans
The Dallas Morning News ^
| October 4, 2002
| By DAVID JACKSON / The Dallas Morning News
Posted on 10/04/2002 2:33:20 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: MeeknMing
I'm hoping the SCOTUS will take the case but think it's doubtful. Public relations and all that. The next best thing - at LEAST threaten to take Forrester off the ballot and replace with Rudy. That would wake up even the Democrat voters to what's going on here. Otherwise, the sheeple just don't get it.
41
posted on
10/04/2002 6:40:13 AM PDT
by
Peach
To: SC_Republican
they did the same subliminal photo manuvers with Bush Sr. The famouse one is where the had Bush Sr. Standing next to Marine One and there was a sign that said keep away with an arrow. The arrow was pointing to Bush Sr. (it was a safety sign for the back rotor)
It is just a group think of evil.
To: Sabertooth
Or, since the NJ Supreme Court is made up of four Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent, perhaps this shows that Christine Todd Whitman is not a very bright person. heh heh. I knew someone was bound to bring that up. What do you think, Saber? Will SCOTUS take this on?
To: MeeknMing
"....party of the Ethically Challenged. ..."
Dems are not ethically challenged because they follow the letter of the ethics rules. There is no controlling legal authority to the contrary.
Morally however, they do not care. Since they have moral relativism. This is why the are consistently inconsistent. (Hawaii vs NJ vs Penn.) The dems. parse words. An nitpick definitions of what "is" is. The only mission and sole goal is aquisition of power and excluding others from doing the same. They are not enlighted to any higher purpose other than personal power over others.
To: MeeknMing
If this was a state senate seat in question I could see it would be no case for the USSC, however this is for a Federal seat. Also, the case for the military members, who serve the Federal gov't, is icing on the cake! Also if this mentally carries on to other states then it needs to be stopped immediately! However that being said, I'd rather see the Democrats trumped so bad on Nov. 5th that they wouldn't dream of doing this again!
45
posted on
10/04/2002 6:50:03 AM PDT
by
Alissa
To: SC_Republican
Good eye.
Another example of subtle media bias.
To: MeeknMing
"There is absolutely no federal question involved, and there's absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case," said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school.The good professor should take another look at the law of the land. The Constitution clearly states that, for elections of federal offices, the state legislatures (not the judiciary) make the rules.
If the "Torch" quits after the legislatively-determined deadline, for a reason other than that specified, it is tantamount to him conceding the election. His opponent wins.
To: MeeknMing
"This shows that even very bright people can make serious mistakes," said Chrissy WhitmanNo, this proves for all the world that you're dumb as a post, Chrissy!
48
posted on
10/04/2002 7:22:55 AM PDT
by
Redbob
To: MeeknMing
"There is absolutely no federal question involved, and there's absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case," said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school. "But I said the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, so what do I know?"
You know absolutely nothing. You would think a Law Professor would have a copy of the US Constution handy so he could see this is a federal question. The US Constution empowers the State Legislature with the right to make the rules governing the election. Until the Legislature gives that power to the NJ Court, the NJ Court has no power to change this rules on some whim. And the last time I checked, how the US Constitution is intrepreted (or ignored in the case) is a federal issue.
To: self_evident
The Dims WILL nationalize this if SCOTUS steps in.This is not a "nationalizable" issue.
Nobody in California is going to change their vote because of what the NJ Supreme Court did. I wish they would but they won't. Same goes for the US Supreme Court. It can affect the NJ race but it won't affect anything else.
If the Supremes reverse then of course the media will spin and spin but the net result will be zippo.
To: MeeknMing
I have yet to see a major media outlet other than Fox News bring up the military ballot question. Hmmmm, could it be because they're biased? This is gonna get fun.
51
posted on
10/04/2002 7:42:10 AM PDT
by
Tailback
To: MeeknMing
Sent to Frank Askins
(email), the "professor" at Rutgers.
It goes as follows:
Article I, section 4 reads:
"The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature (not courts) thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."
You being a professor and have NO CLUE that the NJSC just ignored law with no rhyme or reason to their decision befuddles me as well as other pro-Contitutionalists.
It is obvious that the DNC is trying to circumvent their predicted loss to Forrester by pulling him and putting a name that NJ voters would recognize in hopes to win the seat. The NJSC did not even focus on Torricelli's reason for leaving the election besides the fact that he would lose. This is not a catastrophic reason mandating a replacement. Any High School grad could see that but you can't?
You are either a political hack blatantly ignoring law or ignorant. I pity the students in your classes. You are teaching them how to be stellar DNC lawyers it sounds.
Sincerely, < name removed >
52
posted on
10/04/2002 7:44:09 AM PDT
by
smith288
To: MeeknMing
So the DNC is writing for The Dallas Morning News, heh?
To: zencycler
Great ad-it should run every day in New Jersey from now until the election.
54
posted on
10/04/2002 7:59:39 AM PDT
by
91B
To: MeeknMing
The 51 day provision was written to prevent a losing candidate from withdrawing late in the race and inserting another candidate.The SCNJ has just announced new rules for betting on all horse races. It's now permissible to change one's bet on a given horse all the way up to one length from the finish line.
THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN FAIRNESS, TO INSURE THAT ALL BETTORS CAN HAVE A CHOICE. AFTER ALL, BETTING ON A LOSING HORSE IN NO CHOICE AT ALL.
Great post meeky.
To: Peach
Great points on 11 & 12. Just for grins, I would like to see them (republicans) replace any candidate behind in the polls, wherever it may be in the nation.
That would graphically show the folly of this RAT sham.
To: BOBTHENAILER
That would graphically show the folly of this RAT sham. Well put. That's what it will take for the sheeple to undertand what happened in NJ this week.
57
posted on
10/04/2002 10:02:52 AM PDT
by
Peach
To: MeeknMing
Another stupid image in my head. Now it's yours:
(Movie poster with Headline screaming):
Lautenasaurus Artificially Revived at Joyseyaster Park! Marvel of Science.
58
posted on
10/04/2002 10:21:12 AM PDT
by
kcar
To: smith288
60
posted on
10/04/2002 10:42:53 AM PDT
by
Mo1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next 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