Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
It seems to me that if New Jersey allows a new ballot to be printed with a new Democratic candidate and that new ballot cannot be sent to the overseas military New Jersey voters because of time constraints, then New Jersey is denying those voters a reasonable opportunity to vote for Senator while giving all of the other voters a reasonable opportunity. That would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because there is no reasonable justification for that unequal treatment. The only reason for the unequal treatment is that the Democrats decided at a late date to replace a candidate who was losing in the polls. What am I missing?
Regards,
Allan J. Favish
http://www.allanfavish.com
77 posted on
10/01/2002 6:10:05 PM PDT by
AJFavish
What comparisons, if any, are there to Katherine Harris' apparent mistake in not resigning her position in a timely manner to qualify for the election. If I remember correctly, the judge did rule that she did break the law, but forgave the offense because of the fact that the voters approved of her by voting for her in the primary.
81 posted on
10/01/2002 6:14:58 PM PDT by
Fuzz
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey said that placing a new candidate on the ballot would be a fair way to resolve the issue and would "give New Jersey voters a chance to speak."
We called it!
I am DISGUSTED but NOT surprised.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Somebody ought to ask "Just why was the state law wriiten and why was 51 days specified ?"
It is also going to depend which way the media pressure will be directed ( Probably in favor of the dems)
86 posted on
10/01/2002 6:26:58 PM PDT by
uncbob
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Torricelli was always a powerhouse fund-raiser:
Isn't that what got him in this mess?
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Democrat politicians trying to steal an election before it even happens. I am reminded of a Mrs. Clinton quote I read in the September 2002 issue of the
Limbaugh Letter as follows:
"It's important to hae core principles and values, but if you're going to be active in policy and politics you have to be a realist."
I'm thinking she really meant you have to be a cheater.
94 posted on
10/01/2002 6:39:37 PM PDT by
harpo11
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Torricelli was always a powerhouse fund-raiser: He helped raise more than $100 million for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as its chairman in the last election cycle. Actually, Toricelli raised $200 million in the last cycle but about $100 million reposes in his account at Banco Nazionale de Zuriche.
103 posted on
10/01/2002 7:50:30 PM PDT by
dodger
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The Senate had ample opportunity prior to the 51 day rule to expel Torricelli out of the Senate and then place a different Democrat on the ballot. So did Torricelli have ample opportunity to quit the Senate prior to the 51 day rule. The Senate pandered to a severely unethical -- if not criminal -- Torricelli . Which of the NJ Supreme Court Judges will pander to the panderers?
107 posted on
10/01/2002 8:13:48 PM PDT by
Zon
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Maybe this has been covered elsewhere, but someone please explain to me how a small group of people can get together and decide who is going to be on the ballot, when the initial determination was made during a primary election cycle. The will of the rank and file democrats in NJ is not even being represented. They have a right and an obligation to choose their own candidate and a few party heads should not be allowed to make that decision. It is the PRIMARY process that is most in jeopardy during this legal battle - at least in my view.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Bump for posts #15 & #17. NJ SC Justices must recuse themselves.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson