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 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 1,281-1,293 next last
To: 1Old Pro
Justices upset with GOP guy because they have already ruled and are now just trying to make it doable.

Sad but true. Pub lawyer once again trying to cite actual legal precedents...again, not allowable in NJ it seems.

541 posted on 10/02/2002 8:38:33 AM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
OH, my God!! We apparently have no rule of law in this country.

He is removing his name, just because he was losing. Hello, NJSC! They can't send this election into turmoil just because he doesn't think he can win it!!

This is totally insane! These justices must have conferred with their friends in Florida.
542 posted on 10/02/2002 8:38:45 AM PDT by KsSunflower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: rintense
. There is no doubt in my mind that the decision has had already been made, thanks in part to behind-the-scenes politics from Clinton, McAwfull, and the DNC. This is a disgrace to the American election process and the Constitution.

Yes, The GOP had a day and a half to prepare, probably as shell shocked by the nonsense he's hearing as we are. VLWC had how long to prepare this scam?

543 posted on 10/02/2002 8:38:48 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

it's over, imho.
NJ has made itself a laughingstock today

what the f**k is happening to this country ...

544 posted on 10/02/2002 8:38:49 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
i've noticed that the Cspan 3 on-line digital feed is unreliable. It appears like someone is pulling the plug on the computer system as the NRSC attorney speaks key arguments on the Carnahan case! (Just being paranoid?).
545 posted on 10/02/2002 8:38:59 AM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
No one has made the point that allowing an exception in this case would render the statute a nullity. The 51 day rule would be gone. The new standard would be could a switch be administratively accomplished. If this circumstance allows an evasion, every circumstance would. Dropping out because you are losing is the weakest possible circumstance possible. Sad.
546 posted on 10/02/2002 8:39:06 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Aaaacckkkkkk! I just got online. I can't believe what I am reading. I was holding out hope that we still have an election process and honest judiciary. That hope is fading fast. The dems are so crooked.
547 posted on 10/02/2002 8:39:18 AM PDT by Wphile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Court appears hostile to Forrester's attorney. This is NOT good.
548 posted on 10/02/2002 8:39:19 AM PDT by McLynnan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: tomkat
Whatever is happening, they're doing it right in front of our very eyes.
549 posted on 10/02/2002 8:39:24 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: rintense
behind-the-scenes politics from Clinton, McAwfull, and the DNC.

Then they had better watch their backs. People who can verify Clinton's behind-the-scenes shenanigans often meet their maker earlier than they would have otherwise!

550 posted on 10/02/2002 8:39:41 AM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: LisaFab
Pub lawyer once again trying to cite actual legal precedents...

He just did it. Justices now saying we need two viable candidates. Chief is yelling at him.

551 posted on 10/02/2002 8:39:49 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie
Their law says if a candidate drops out, it is a "Fatal defect" but NJ does not say that. Implication, IMHO, is that in NJ non-compliance with the law means nothing. She asked the dem lawyer if he thought there was an important point to be inferred but he missed the softball totally. Now she is beating the republican over it.

Ask yourself this question - If the fatal defect clause was in NJ Law, would there still be an issue? I believe yes, because the Dems can still claim voters are being disenfranchised.

552 posted on 10/02/2002 8:39:54 AM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: alnick
Seems like the Court is going to preempt the will of the voters, based on a poll!
553 posted on 10/02/2002 8:39:59 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Torie
It's done. They're not letting him express a complete thought.
554 posted on 10/02/2002 8:39:59 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: McLynnan
The attorney is a milktoast.
555 posted on 10/02/2002 8:40:04 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Oviously they are graduates of the Patrick Leahy School of Law.
556 posted on 10/02/2002 8:40:25 AM PDT by chnsmok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
Mine also kept breaking up. Try refreshing the page -- seemed to fix it for me.
557 posted on 10/02/2002 8:40:46 AM PDT by McLynnan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Maybe the NJSC should get Torch to testify as to why he quit.
558 posted on 10/02/2002 8:40:55 AM PDT by 5by5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
It is yet again, an attempt by the Democrats to usurp the Constitution, set case law, and hyjack the electoral system.
They cannot be allowed to get away with it, They are trying this in Hawaii, too. And in Carnahan's case they printed absentee ballots with the wrong party affiliation on them, some of which have been returned already.
559 posted on 10/02/2002 8:41:00 AM PDT by wingnuts'nbolts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
What about the Non-DemocRAT voters? Don't they have rights?
560 posted on 10/02/2002 8:41:05 AM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 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