Skip to comments.
Torricelli Ballot Battle OK'd (State Supreme Court Accepts)
11 Alive ^
| 10/1/02
Posted on 10/01/2002 4:24:14 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-120 next last
To: A Citizen Reporter
Well, whoever it is, I'm sure it will be ahead in the polls within minutes........LOL.
21
posted on
10/01/2002 4:50:26 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Travis McGee
Great point McGee.
22
posted on
10/01/2002 4:52:34 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: Miss Marple
Get over here now and look at Southtacks posts!!!!!!!!!
23
posted on
10/01/2002 4:54:43 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: Howlin
"And the Republican are doing it again -- in 2000 they went to court to stop the vote counting, but this time they want to stop the voting for a candidate of our choice BEFORE the election!" You have got to be freakin' kidding me!! Low though my expectations are for Bill Press, I didn't think anyone, save for a consultant, pollster, politician, or anyone else who isn't currently paid by the RAT party would utter anything so chin-droolingly silly!
To: Southack
It would seem to me that these two should recuse themselves from this decision.
These may be worthy of a breaking news thread of their own....this IS BREAKING.
To: Don Munn
I don't know if it's been posted yet, but the Dems got an injunction to prevent other counties from mailing out anymore absentee ballots. One county even has some completed ballots back.
To: winin2000
You'll have to trust me......he said that almost word for word on their show today. And with a straight face. Very sincere.
27
posted on
10/01/2002 5:00:21 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Hillarys Gate Cult
You are kidding!
28
posted on
10/01/2002 5:00:40 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Southack
MAN, I love FR! Thanks, Southack!
To: Howlin
* but this time they want to stop the voting for a candidate of our choice BEFORE the election!"
In other words: "We Demoncrats hate it when a law gets in our way!"
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Look for these degenerate kangaroos to throw sheets to the wind and come out with an opinion that makes the GOP look like they are the ones who are breaking the law by refusing to let the latest democrat election theft attempt go forward unopposed.
The Jersey Supreme court is another democrat rubber stamp outfit.
The real damage they and their kind do is to the rule of law in the USA.
Apparently the law is meaningless to the Democrats, and they can continue to run roughshod over it wherever they hold a majority.
Forrester will kick the ass of any rat SOB the DNC and the rats can dig up from mothballs, even that idiot Lautenberg.
31
posted on
10/01/2002 5:04:14 PM PDT
by
Rome2000
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"I'm in a debate with a faceless foe that I cannot find, minds I cannot change."
Try www.freerepublic.com, Torch!
To: Howlin
"It seems to be that when the polls showed Torricelli 13 to 20 points behind that the citizens of New Jersey WERE speaking."
Excellent - way too much logic for the dim/libs though.
To: Travis McGee
Isn't that the OBJECT?
Like Clintong their leader they, "Loathe the military..."
What do we do with traitors today? Elect them?
To: Southack
Great research, Southack. Thanks. This is unbelievable.
35
posted on
10/01/2002 5:08:10 PM PDT
by
Balata
To: generalissimoduane
Look at freeper Southtacks posts ...it seems we have a conflict of interest now with the NJ Supreme Court...
Duane this is HUGE!!!!!!
36
posted on
10/01/2002 5:09:00 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: All
Dems have gotten an injuction to prevent mailing of anymore ballots.....
To: Southack
Well, looky here....great find....like I said on another thread, the torch and the rats would never have pulled this stunt without knowing how the court would rule......This makes me sick!
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
There is no legal basis to do what the Democrats are trying to do. None. If the NJ Supreme Court allows them to do so, it is a kangeroo court made up of DemonCrap political hacks who do not recognize the rule of law, in violation of their oaths.
39
posted on
10/01/2002 5:10:32 PM PDT
by
tomahawk
To: Dog
It would seem to me that a judge who is obviously a supporter of the parties involved should recuse himself.
Otherwise he would be opening himself up to charges of judicial misconduct. I would hope this information can be forwarded to the appropriate people.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-120 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