[epow]

Will We Let Judges Fix Elections?

Well, they just fixed the NJ election and got away with it, so I guess we are going to let them fix elections. Next question please.

[KC Burke]

Phyllis is a grand read. The woman is a wonder.

[jonathanmo]

"some areas are experimenting with electronic voting machines, but those machines make it easy to substitute a name on the ballot only hours before an election. Should a party be allowed to do that if polls show a candidate is about to lose?"

To me, this is a key point in the drive for "election reform."  The technology is available for "instant candidate change," and with the New Jersey Court paving the way, a candidate could drop out pretty much any time before the polls opened and it would be "fair."  Absentee ballots, pretty much held in disregard anyway, would be eliminated and replaced with some form of electronic voting (internet related).  Candidates could be rotated in and out during the campaign season, depending on the polls.  "Dummy" candidates could be placeholders until the "real" candidate is sprung on in the waning hours.

And it wouldn't matter what laws were passed against such activity....because it wouldn't be "fair."

[nightdriver]

"Activist judges have been rewriting laws for many years, but now the trend is for activist state judges to try to rig an election."

Nothing new here. Why do you think John Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson for a running mate in 1960? Because he knew that LBJ had enough Texas judges in his pocket that he could deliver the state for him in the election.

[Highest Authority]

Not much new here! New Jersey has had fixed elections for generations!! Even the Mayoral elections. When a DemonRat won the Trenton election, documented fraud was pointed out to the Republican opponent ... he declined to press the legal issues. Several months later the DemonRat Governor appointed that same Repub. to a high level State position. Even if the DemonRat accidentally loses, he is appointed to a high paying, do nothing, position on the infamous Port Authority.

[You Dirty Rats]

As Dirty as the 'Rats are, the problem here has been correctly identified: A worthless RINO like Christie Todd Witless appointing judges who have no respect for the law.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

I don't call judges"BLACKROBED THIEVES"for nothing!

[Whilom]

Isn't this like sounding the alarm after the fire station burns down?

[Zon]

U.S. Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) has been facing corruption allegations for several years, and a man who paid him bribes is now in jail.

The Senate Ethics Committee, controlled by Democrats, gave Torricelli a pass.

That's a loaded comment. Let's unpack it.

1. The Senators that make up the Senate Ethics Committee (SEC) have ethics?!? They all violated their oaths to uphold the constitution and in the process violated individual rights and private property rights.
   
2. When the Senators that make up the SEC are without ethics does it matter whether the "evil" is Democrat controlled or Republican controlled? The lesser of evils still begets evil.
   
3. That the SEC gave Torricelli a pass is proof that the SEC is, in regards to honesty and justice is without ethics.

Elections should follow pre-election rules, whether one side later objects or not. If courts are allowed to manipulate elections by changing the rules in the middle of or after the election, then we can expect crooked elections all over the country.

How can a government that doesn't adhere to it's own laws expect the citizens to recognize the government as legitimate? A government that doesn't adhere to its own laws causes the people to acknowledge that it's an illegitimate government and organized crime/fraud.

[pray4liberty]

This will just prove to people that no decent person will ever run as a Democrat. After all, the party bosses can and will pull the rug out from under you after you've legitimately won a primary. Who wants to risk their money and reputation under those circumstances? Will the Party reimburse the campaign bills? NO. So the poor schmuck will wind up having to pay for an election campaign he or she will never win.

If they can't stay faithful to their own candidates, will they be faithful to the bewildered voter? If they can ignore the law this time, what about later? These are the questions voters should be asking.

The Republicans ought to really use this..."Vote Republican, we don't switch our candidates on ya!"

[Stultis]

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000 stands for the principle that the rules for a federal election must be determined in advance by the legislature...

No, most unfortunately, it did not.

The case should have been decided on that basis -- on the clear constitutional requirement that the manner of selecting presidential electors (and senators, btw) is to be determined by the legislatures of the states -- but there were only three votes on the Supreme Court for this, those of the core conservatives Renquist, Scalia and Thomas.

Instead the majority opinion was formed on the basis of "equal protection of the laws". In the event, the Florida Supreme's cobbled together re-re-re-count procedure effectively gave more consideration and weight to some votes and less to others. The libs and moderates on the court were apparently more comfortable with the equal protection approach as there were already many legal precidents invoking it wrt elections. It is also, however, another means for the courts to monkey with electoral procedures.

If Bush v. Gore had been rightly decided (i.e. based on the simplest and clearest criteria) than the chicanery in Soprano Land would never have been possible. Yet another reason we need to take back the Senate and get conservative judges appointed!