Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NJ Supreme Court Hearing Live Thread
New Jersey Public TV ^ | 10/02/02 | TonyInOhio

Posted on 10/02/2002 7:04:20 AM PDT by TonyInOhio

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,281-1,293 next last
To: Lyford
Please keep updating; I can't get the live stream to work. Thanks.
21 posted on 10/02/2002 7:21:02 AM PDT by Stingray51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
Here's a thought that's been bugging me. The Torch as much admitted that he's not going to win. How did the Dems determine that? By a poll of course. How big was the poll sample? In other words a poll sample on a day other than election day seems to be more important than election day itself. Polls can be wrong. Doesn't anybody remember "DEWEY WINS!" ?
22 posted on 10/02/2002 7:21:13 AM PDT by Utopia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
I just can't believe that anyone could get up and argue that a candidate, on the basis of polling information, can just up and quit because he believes he will lose, and the party can simply pop in another candidate. This will create chaos, especailly after all the campaign money they have raised. Then there is the issue of the money and effort Forrester has spent up to this point will all be for naught, which is patently unfair. The primary process is supposed to weed out the chaff like Torricelli. They went with him, now they have to stay with him.

Maybe Gore should have quit after the first debate and let Nader have the ball!! LOL!

23 posted on 10/02/2002 7:21:48 AM PDT by SpinyNorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio; All
C-SPAN III is carrying this also!
24 posted on 10/02/2002 7:22:11 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
Dims up first.

-Need for "competitive" election
-"vacancy created by his [T's] withdrawl"
-Plenty of time for replacement
25 posted on 10/02/2002 7:22:38 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utopia
Justice (female) just asked why plain reading of statute does not show cutoff already passed.
26 posted on 10/02/2002 7:23:03 AM PDT by TheConservator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
This is airing live on C-SPAN, at least while the House of Representatives is in the middle of votes.
27 posted on 10/02/2002 7:23:40 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utopia
Utopia, polls of the media/journalist/academia type are the lifeblood of the Democrat Party. It is one of Clinton's legacies. Finger in the wind type politics.

You do have a good point.

I have thought about this thing this morning, and am optimistic that this Supreme Court will refuse to be known in legal circles, and in law books from now on, as the "Toricelli Exception" court. I just don't think they want their good reputations linked with the crook, no matter whether the ruling has substance or not.
28 posted on 10/02/2002 7:24:07 AM PDT by Galtoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SpinyNorman
I just can't believe that anyone could get up and argue that a candidate, on the basis of polling information, can just up and quit because he believes he will lose, and the party can simply pop in another candidate.

AFTER THE VOTING HAS BEGUN, no less!

29 posted on 10/02/2002 7:24:40 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
-statutory 51 day limit is not a "qualifying event," but just goes to allowing for the "mechanics of the election" to be accomodated
30 posted on 10/02/2002 7:24:42 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
Rat lawyer says 51 days is directory not mandatory. But justice (Deniro?) points out earlier case involved deceased candidate
31 posted on 10/02/2002 7:24:53 AM PDT by TheConservator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
Here's how we turn up the heat:

People in Delaware, call Joe Biden's office and tell them that since Clatworthy is trailing in the polls, we are going to yank him and run Pete duPont instead.

In California, we are going to pull Simon and run Tom Cruise instead.

you get the idea. let your imagination be your guide.

32 posted on 10/02/2002 7:25:02 AM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
q-What about absentee ballots?
33 posted on 10/02/2002 7:25:32 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
To put it bluntly, it is an attempt at "bait and switch" campaigning by the Democrats. If a business did this, it would rightfully be shut down and the owners would be lucky not to be in a 8-foot by 10-foot cell with a guy who says, "My name is Spike, honey."
34 posted on 10/02/2002 7:25:37 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Top 7 reasons to shut the Dems down:

1. Torch is not sick or otherwise physically unable to run.

2. The Dems knew he was dirty, they had full access to files for Ethics Committee hearing.

3. Torch knew he was dirty.

4. Ballots have been printed.

5. Absentee ballots have been mailed.

6. Military ballots have been mailed.

7. There are plenty of other candidates, Greens, Libertarians, etc.

As my Daddy always said, bad planning on the Dems part does not constitute an emergency on the part of the court.

35 posted on 10/02/2002 7:25:42 AM PDT by TC Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
16 hundred or so absentee already sent out
36 posted on 10/02/2002 7:26:15 AM PDT by twyn1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: katykelly
SCONJ Clerk's office:
609-292-4837
37 posted on 10/02/2002 7:26:47 AM PDT by The Wizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
Rat lawyer acknowledges 1600 plus absentee ballots have already been sent. But argues that ballots can be reprinted and resent.

Justice (female) raises question about federal law applicable to absentee ballots.
38 posted on 10/02/2002 7:27:08 AM PDT by TheConservator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
a- only 1700 absentee ballots out of 18,0000 have been sent. court can order reprinting and resending of those sent. judge helpfully adds that a clarifying letter can be sent.
39 posted on 10/02/2002 7:27:13 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
If this deadline doesn't apply to the Democrats than by extension every other citizen who wishes to be placed on the ballot should have that right up until the day of the election.

Bingo. The Repubs are (not very competently, yet) starting to make this same argument. See the Newark Star-Ledger at http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1033563011143130.xml:
Tom Wilson, a political strategist who was a spokesman for Whitman and former acting Gov. Donald DiFrancesco...
said Torricelli's departure has fanned some intriguing private speculation among Republicans. Some, he said, believe that if Democrats are allowed to replace Torricelli with a well-known candidate like Lautenberg, Republicans should consider responding in kind with someone like Kean.

40 posted on 10/02/2002 7:27:16 AM PDT by sanchmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,281-1,293 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson