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 ... 761-780, 781-800, 801-820 ... 1,281-1,293 next last
To: aristeides
Barone just said they have SIX choices! Justice: "...so you want your candidate to face an empty chair."
Barone: "..the only voters who will be disenfranchised are the military absentee voters."
They might get away with this, but Barone is getting their corruption and stupidity on the record.
781
posted on
10/02/2002 9:13:39 AM PDT
by
LisaFab
To: ELS
Current Pubbie lawyer doing a pretty good job of pounding home the disenfranchisement of overseas military personnel. It won't matter, because the justices have already made up their minds, but he is giving it a pretty good shot.
782
posted on
10/02/2002 9:13:54 AM PDT
by
GnL
To: Catspaw
What is it with this concern that the voters don't have a choice? NJ voters have a Democrat choice: the Torch. He just happens to be a bad choice. The court is providing a remedy in order to favor one particular political party.
To: aristeides
It's good to hear these justices making the point that "giving voters a choice" is paramount in this case.
See Post #303 on this thread. If Lautenberg is permitted on the ballot, then the court's decision in this case will serve as the precedent for my legal challenge.
You see, I'm about to register as a Democrat tomorrow . . .
To: goldstategop
Very true - they may be sorry if they set this precedent.
785
posted on
10/02/2002 9:14:25 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: Miss Marple
Do not keep suggesting drinks. I told you airplane glue was beginning to sound good!!
To: All
Rush just said Lousyberg is the last choice the RATs wanted. Interesting.
787
posted on
10/02/2002 9:14:26 AM PDT
by
McGruff
To: tomkat
This is a thread about the NJ supreme court, why are you talking about McDermott? I am confused. Anyway, McDermott represents the Seattle area, which has the third largest gay population in the country.
788
posted on
10/02/2002 9:14:32 AM PDT
by
Eva
To: Don'tMessWithTexas; Teacher317
The opinion will be that the state constitution trumps the law, and then they'll give a really broad and loose reason why the constitution demands a name switch. (see SCOFL tactics)
To: Fred Mertz
Did Torricelli formally quit the race? An interesting question. He said that he asked that his name be removed from the ballet. Now that the party has done the one thing he asked them not to do--replace him with Lautenberg--he might do anything. One hopes.
790
posted on
10/02/2002 9:14:59 AM PDT
by
twigs
To: TC Rider
also well said!
free dixie,sw
To: Dog
On the AWTR I provided a commentary....do you get C-SPAN III?
To: aristeides
Barone: Torricelli has filed a document to withdraw. Barone now arguing that that withdrawal is ineffective under NJ statute. Totally agree. I just stopped listening as my blood pressure was rising.
This is such a black and white issue to me, that I think it's ludicrous that the NJSC is hearing this at all.
To: Miss Marple
LOL...S%S is no longer there....we have TWO now in different locations.....Im getting airplane glue this afternoon, in the meantime Im putting my head in a paint can!
To: GnL
My prediction is 6-1 in favoring of ignoring the law and achieving the desired result (election of Lautenburg); the one dissenter will be Verneiro.
795
posted on
10/02/2002 9:15:34 AM PDT
by
laconic
To: twyn1
This guy is hammering at the federal rules, absentee MILITARY ballots which cannot be mailed/returned in time, 6 choices on the ballots, one of the candidate has ATTEMPTED to withdraw .GOOD.
796
posted on
10/02/2002 9:15:35 AM PDT
by
mwl1
To: aristeides
Justice now saying that not allowing a substitution would deny NJ voters a "fair choice." Why? Don't they have a choice, with the other candidates?Why don't they have a fair choice? Because Torricelli withdrew. If they had any brains at all, they would just say, Torricelli stays on the ballot and that's the choice. Period. Won't happen but it should.
I cannot believe the outright corruption we are watching on TV!!
797
posted on
10/02/2002 9:15:39 AM PDT
by
Wphile
To: aristeides
Barone's good.
I wish someone would make the point that there is no choice for the dems even if a new candidate is named - for example, Lautenberg - no one voted for him to be on the ballot, what kind of choice is that, and no one had a choice when Torricelli ran unopposed in the primary.
798
posted on
10/02/2002 9:15:43 AM PDT
by
agrace
To: aristeides
Ya know, on days like this, I really should just close the office and stay home. The person I was talking to on the phone must've thought I was rather curt with them because I wanted to get back to listening to the arguments.
799
posted on
10/02/2002 9:15:44 AM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: cyncooper
How bad is it??Rush said NJ court is a hack, and will side w Dems.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780, 781-800, 801-820 ... 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