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: Molly Pitcher
There's a CSPAN 3?
41 posted on 10/02/2002 7:27:37 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
Supreme Court Motion in the Matter of the New Jersey US Senate Election
42 posted on 10/02/2002 7:27:47 AM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion's Cub
huge advantage it would give them when the new campaign laws kick into effect. As long as they wait until they are into the 60 day period before the elections, only the media will be allowed to comment on the candidate.

My word. I never thought about that. This is a very frightening precedent-setting issue indeed. Thanks for the commentary.

43 posted on 10/02/2002 7:28:04 AM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Galtoid
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.

Good point!

I also think that even there is a remote possibility that this could end up at the SCOTUS, no state Supreme Court would want to get reprimanded by the SCOTUS like the Florida Supreme Court was.

44 posted on 10/02/2002 7:28:11 AM PDT by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
Justice (Abbon?) asks if Rat argument is accepted, where do they draw the line?

Sure sounds like the Justices are very skeptical of Rat argument to me. (He he).
45 posted on 10/02/2002 7:28:22 AM PDT by TheConservator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
q- If not following statute, where do we draw the line?

a- What matters is the "overall objective" of the election laws. (IOW, you judges decide)
46 posted on 10/02/2002 7:28:23 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Wizard
DNC Lawyer - Voters have an "over-arching" right to have competitive elections...
47 posted on 10/02/2002 7:28:41 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
#4 is the most concise point. I would add the following:

If the court supports the Democratic Party's bid to have a new candidate placed on the ballot, it will have effectively decided that the nomination of candidates by political parties is unconstitutional because political parties clearly cannot be trusted to respect the rights of voters. What this means, in essence, is that every election in the state of New Jersey becomes an open election in which anyone who can garner 5,000 signatures (or one signature, if the court's ruling is interpreted literally) can be placed on the ballot.

48 posted on 10/02/2002 7:29:42 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
DNC lawyer is getting HAMMERED ...
49 posted on 10/02/2002 7:29:48 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
Too bad we can't loan New Jersey that great American, Judge Sauls... he wouldn't show up late and he's the type to serve his country instead of serving the Party...
50 posted on 10/02/2002 7:29:53 AM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Allow me to re-write to coorrect Demoncrap spin:
"We want the right to pull a bait-and-switch."

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."
51 posted on 10/02/2002 7:30:09 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: The Wizard
DEM.: "I would suggest that the court do..."

and the judge is listening. Crap. How long did they plan this? The DNC lawyer is a smooth liar. The decision should be based on "If it can be fixed, it should be fixed," according to the Dem.

NJSC looked bad...no more C-Span feed. Surprise.

52 posted on 10/02/2002 7:30:09 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
DemonRAT lawyer arguing that criterion for arbitrarily replacing candidates on ballots is "IF you can fix it, fix it." Maybe subconsciously, he was thinking about elections when he made that statement, as opposed to ballots.
53 posted on 10/02/2002 7:30:19 AM PDT by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Huck
http://www.c-span.org/watch/

Watch or listen. I'm listening on C-SPAN3.

54 posted on 10/02/2002 7:30:19 AM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
From what I saw on CSPAM is the judges are not buying the democrats lies
55 posted on 10/02/2002 7:30:23 AM PDT by The Wizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
so of course cspam cuts away to the daily house circlejerk ...
56 posted on 10/02/2002 7:30:26 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

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

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

57 posted on 10/02/2002 7:30:41 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
Sure sounds like the Justices are very skeptical of Rat argument to me. (He he).

The questions doesn't mean they are for or against. In fact they may be for it but want help in answering the objections.

58 posted on 10/02/2002 7:30:49 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: tomkat
Judge: "You're asking us to assign no weight to reason for switch."
59 posted on 10/02/2002 7:31:22 AM PDT by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Is DNC lawyer being hammered by one justice, or several justices?
60 posted on 10/02/2002 7:31:41 AM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | 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