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
New Jersey Public TV is carrying this hearing live. Click on Watch Live Online, and post what you hear, here.
Tony
TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: demonrats; election; fixisin; forrester; fraud; greasetheskids; igotyourparadigm; lautenberg; ratcrimes; steal; stealingelection; toricelli
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740, 741-760, 761-780 ... 1,281-1,293 next last
To: Teacher317
They would write a tortured opinion that recognizes the law but seeks to promote the interests of the people.
To: aristeides
The justices seem to be suggesting that, if they're already in violation of federal statute by not having mailed out all the military ballots by 35 days before the election, it doesn't matter if they delay that mailing further. If by whacking each of the justices once with a baseball bat means I'm already in violation of the law against assault and battery, then it doesn't matter if I give them an additional dozen whacks.
To: twigs
Bill can't replace him. Bill isn't a residence of NJ.
To: Catspaw
Now the justices are suggesting that the violation of federal law is only one factor that can be counterbalanced by other factors. Hey, justices, ever hear of the supremacy of federal law?
To: aristeides
Did Torricelli formally quit the race? Did he file papers or anything?
To: Torie
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.And the implication of that would be that the party in power would determine whether or not to allow ballot switches. The Republican party would be denied because of "administrative reasons" while the Democratic party could make the switch under the same circumstances.
746
posted on
10/02/2002 9:07:55 AM PDT
by
PMCarey
To: Molly Pitcher
How bad is it??
Should I turn on the TV??
747
posted on
10/02/2002 9:07:56 AM PDT
by
Dog
To: hchutch
...there is discomfort with this in the minds of many Democrats...I don't believe that is true. There hasn't been one Democrat speak against this outrageous move. Maybe some rank and file but not enough to upset the apple cart. I don't trust any of the democrats - be they the bosses or the people.
748
posted on
10/02/2002 9:07:57 AM PDT
by
Wphile
To: Teacher317
Justice: let's not disenfranchise the military voter who might have already voted for the Torch...huh ?? the Torch is the one who did it to the guy...and he dropped out just because he was behind in the poll
749
posted on
10/02/2002 9:08:04 AM PDT
by
twyn1
To: Wphile
The fact the NJSC is taking a poll is the weirdest thing I have ever heard. What possible difference could a poll make in interpreting the law? The poll is for political purposes. The judges are appointed, so what do they care about a poll. The message to take a poll must have come from McGreevy.
To: coloradan
Nice twist! ;^)
To: aristeides
Back & forth, back & forth....however, this is much more interesting than the last Supremes case (in Wisconsin) I sat in on--that was about a zoning dispute. Yawn.
752
posted on
10/02/2002 9:08:45 AM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: TonyInOhio
The New Jersey democRAT fix is in!
Every GOP candidate across America who is behind by more than 20% in a statewide race should immediately quit and demand a more electable replacement for the November 5th election.
Demand a competitive election!
To: Fred Mertz
Did Torricelli formally quit the race? Did he file papers or anything? I don't know.
To: Common Tator
>>Winning isn't everything-it's the only thing<<
Right you are, CT.
We are always worried about whether or not to support our candidate-is he good enough, is he always right, is he better than the other guy.
The RATs never, never, never have to worry about this-Torricelli, Lautenberg, Carnahan, Mink, alive, dead, who cares? Who gives a flying f***?
What matters is to win.
To: aristeides
I thought he filed *something* with the NJ AG.
756
posted on
10/02/2002 9:09:29 AM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: PMCarey
This would form the basis of an equal protection argument to the SCOTUS
To: Peach
I just called the number. The question was "Do you want the Constition upheld or changed?" I asked "Which Constitution, first of all?" She said,"Uuuuuh, I mean whether or not they should let Torricelli be replaced." I said NO. What kind of BS is that? What the hell are they polling people for????THIS IS FREAKING INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAHAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
758
posted on
10/02/2002 9:09:38 AM PDT
by
Huck
To: Dog
you can get just as good a headache from the whole deal just reading it in here,
and save your tv being put in harm's way by bricks, lamps, shoes, etc ...
759
posted on
10/02/2002 9:09:51 AM PDT
by
tomkat
To: All
One of the justices just said that if the candidate had died then we would have to change the ballots since the voters would not have a choice.
ummm..........????? Didn't we have just the opposite arguement two years ago and currently in Hawai?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740, 741-760, 761-780 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson