[Tumbleweed_Connection]

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN’S FACE.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate here by secure server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

[Puppage]

Republicans immediately screamed foul, and with some reason.

Some Reason? Some law, perhaps? The democRATic party is indeed, a criminal enterprise.

[DB]

What crap!

It was the Democrats that wanted exceptions to the law after the fact both times. What a lame idiotic writer...

Wait until it comes around to the USSC.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Try again. The New Jersey Supreme Court is following the same tactics of the Florida Supreme Court, namely making up the rules as they go along in order to help Democrats.

[Bahbah]

I tried to click through to the SacBee to tell them that this is one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces I have ever come across, but I couldn't get through to MPaul on the Ed board. Maybe he'll see it here.

[DWSUWF]

This propaganda angle ocurred to me within minutes of my hearing about the NJ debacle. It took another second to realize that it could only be packaged this way if the NJ event went south for them.

This article is the first example I've seen of the left using it.

That they are now trotting it out indicates to me that they realize it was a gross over-reach, and that it will be turned against them.

The left eats its own, so what was a success is now sacrificed in a pathetic attempt to make a propaganda score.

[Kozak]

What a boat load of crap. SCOTUS got involved in Florida ONLY after the Florida Supremes completely ignored and or rewrote the election laws of Florida. Ditto for the idiots on the NJ Supreme bench.

If the damn ruling by the NJ court stands the people of NJ should demand a full refund of the salaries of the Legislature, since they don't do anything anyway. After all it will be the courts that WRITE the laws.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

Look what the U.S. Supreme Court has started.


excuse me it was the florida supremes who meddled into the election first the scotus wanted nothing to do with that election and even gave them a chance to fix it and only stepped in when the scofla gave them the finger

[McGavin999]

Gee, these idiots just skipped right over the little incident with the Florida Supreme Court didn't they. Ah, those nasty little details can be overlooked.

Liberals don't like details, they might help people figure things out. Little things like the Florida Supreme Court taking the law into it's own hands, just like the New Jersey Supreme Court, is reason enough for the USSC to step in and remind the lower courts that their job is to INTERPRET the law, not MAKE the law.

Just another of those nasty little details contained in the Constitution.

[goldstategop]

LMAO! Wrong Court. The one that screwed up the law so badly that the SCOTUS had to take it to the woodshed not once but TWICE was the Floriduh SCOFLA - also nicknamed for good reason SCOFLAW. Its too much for the liberal Sacramento Bee to get its facts straight in its haste to condemn Republicans for trying to stop the New Jersey Supremos rape of the law.

[Always Right]

You can't change the rules and the players when you're losing the election, Republicans are crying. But the New Jersey court, like the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, didn't see it that way.

What a complete idiot. It was the Florida Supreme Court that was slapped around for changing the rules. The US Supreme Court ruled that the rules could NOT be changed.

[PhilipFreneau]

People in Sacramento must be absolute idiots if that kind of "editorializing" is allowed in their newspapers. Any fool can see the Supreme Court has not, to date, intervened in any election in recent years -- they have only stopped the intervention by a state court (Florida) in an election, and considering whether to stop the intervention by another state court (New Jersey). Therefore, the author of this "editorial" is clear example of a biased political hack. Ann Coulter has even more material for her next book.

[stndngathwrthistry]

You can't change the rules and the players when you're losing the election, Republicans are crying. But the New Jersey court, like the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, didn't see it that way.

That thump you just heard was my jaw hitting the floor.

Does this editorialist really--really--not remember that it was Gore who lost the count and filed suit to change the rules?

This is absolutely bizarre. Very few things leftie media types say have the power to shock me, but this shocks me.

[cyncooper]

You can't change the rules and the players when you're losing the election, Republicans are crying. But the New Jersey court, like the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, didn't see it that way.

What color is they sky in their world in Sacramento??

Do they think the 2000 election questions landed in the US Supreme Court without any intervening shenanigans from the Florida Supreme Court doing just what they decry above?

That is, the SCOFLAs were changing the rules and players when GORE was losing the election!

I read this "piece" in disbelief at their "reasoning" and trying to compare what the NJ idiots did to the US Supreme court. Unbelievable.

Clearly the proper comparison is NJ Supremes to Florida Supremes.

[InterceptPoint]

Look what the U.S. Supreme Court has started.

Notice to the Sacramento Bee

I'm sure that this was just an oversight on the part of your editor but this sentence clearly should have read:

Look what the Florida Supreme Court has started

I'll be looking for the correction in tomorrow's edition.

[Always Right]

Here are the editors of the Bee e-mail addresses:

dholwerk@sacbee.com
mpaul@sacbee.com
rmott@sacbee.com
grutland@sacbee.com
scooper@sacbee.com
tphilp@sacbee.com
jhughes@sacbee.com

And the e-mail I submitted:

I hate to inform you, but the whole premise of the Bee's editorial (Editorial: Playing by new rules) is incorrect. It was not the US Supreme Court who changed the rules, but the Florida Supreme Court who did. It was the US Supreme Court that slapped down 9-0 the Florida Supreme Court for changing the rules based on the Constitution and Federal Law, see GEORGE W. BUSH, PETITIONER v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD ET AL.

(http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-836_dec04.fdf)

"Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature's authority under Art. II, §1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U. S. C. §5. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

So you see, it is not the Republicans getting a taste of their own medicine, but de ja vu all over again.

[jaz.357]

..."As outraged Republicans are learning, what goes around, comes around".....PURE B.S!!!

[Bigun]

My e-mail to the Sacremento Bee Ombudsman follows:

From: Bigun

To: Ombudsman, Sacremento Bee

Subject: Editorial: Playing by new rules - N.J. follows U.S. court down wrong path

Whoever wrote this editorial has not the FAINTEST clue as to what actually happened in 2000 nor, for that matter, what is happening in New Jersey currently!

The Supreme Court of the United States got involved in Florida ONLY after the Florida Supreme Court unconstitutionally ignored and rewrote the election laws of Florida. The New Jersey court, completely ignoring the rulings of the USSC in that matter, has just done EXACTLY the same thing and ought to be slapped down HARD for so doing!

You OUGHT to INSIST that they correct this IN PRINT ASAP!

Bigun
Huntsville, Texas

[SW6906]

From another Freeper (I can't recall where I found this):

The US Supreme Court ruled three times in the Election fiasco of 2000:

Regarding the inability of any authority to change the rules of a Federal election after the process started (in Floriduh's case, changing the counting and reporting rules in an Electoral College election), it was 9-0.

Regarding the failure to provide equal protection of the voters and their ballots, it was 7-2.

Regarding the complete lack of a Constitutional "remedy" for the Sore Loserman campaign, it was 5-4.

The last one is the one the Dems like to latch onto, but the other two are the key ones, IMHO.

[aruanan]

Look what the U.S. Supreme Court has started. Following the example of the nation's high court in the 2000 presidential election, the New Jersey Supreme Court this week decided also to intervene in an election, elevating abstract concerns about fairness over a strict reading of the law. As outraged Republicans are learning, what goes around, comes around.

Is this writer disingenuous or merely stupid? It was the Florida Supreme Court, another state supreme court, that decided to abrogate state law for partisan political purposes.