Skip to comments.
NJSC Dems can replace Tori's on ballot - Pubbies appealing
Posted on 10/02/2002 2:57:31 PM PDT by Liz
Pubbies may try for stay in circuit court.
TOPICS: Announcements; Breaking News
KEYWORDS: stutteringbafoon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 461-463 next last
To: Dog
Im sick....My hubby and son are in the ARMY...there are thousands of young women and men overseas right now in harms way fighting for this country....fighting for our rights...our right to vote, but they are not allowed to.....Shit!
To: Kozak
Bingo.
To: mware
Actually, there is a problem if you've allready sent in your ballot (hint, hint). When you are "issued" your new ballot, how can you legally vote, unless there is a mechanism in place to remove your previous ballot. After all, you can't vote twice. But then again, how can you be sure that your "bad" ballot is removed?
Sounds like a federal problem to me.......
203
posted on
10/02/2002 3:45:42 PM PDT
by
par4
To: PhiKapMom
Isn't this a Federal Issue?
204
posted on
10/02/2002 3:46:04 PM PDT
by
vannrox
To: Liz
There are no longer any laws in the US. We no longer have to follow anything, period. The NJSC made that fact very clear by this ruling.
205
posted on
10/02/2002 3:46:14 PM PDT
by
Brytani
To: ambrose
Ambrose, it's not just Lousenberg. This is about the nj dem machine. /sigh of disgust
To: Political Junkie Too
Sure thing. Where is the RNC? What did they do, just turn off the lights and close the door? Why aren't they on every TV and radio in the country?
207
posted on
10/02/2002 3:47:19 PM PDT
by
engrpat
To: Smedley
BINGO, Smedley. THAT is a GREAT plan!
208
posted on
10/02/2002 3:47:57 PM PDT
by
justshe
To: McLynnan
They must have written their opinion last night. Christ, they don't even try to make it look good.
209
posted on
10/02/2002 3:47:59 PM PDT
by
LaGrone
To: Brytani
You're right re no laws. Clinton started it all when he parsed the meaning of the word "is". Ann Coulter already has an article about The Torch matter.
210
posted on
10/02/2002 3:48:13 PM PDT
by
Peach
To: Dog
Re#185 Oops. I misunderstood. Actually, they said very little. Pretty much just "go ahead, Rats. Make it happen." Disgusting....
211
posted on
10/02/2002 3:48:16 PM PDT
by
eureka!
To: Brytani
Mara on Fox just said the NJ RATS are polling as we speak to see how this is playing....oh are they in for a SURPRISE!!!!!!
212
posted on
10/02/2002 3:48:21 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: stlrocket
7 X
213
posted on
10/02/2002 3:48:24 PM PDT
by
weegee
To: spodefly
And the Court having determined that the interests of justice require the immediate issuance of an Order disposition with the Court's opinion to follow in due course; This means 'never', if they can get away with it. How is the hell can they justify such a decision if they have not explained the facts and the law on which they based their opinion. This decision violates the principles of due process which requires a written explanation of the decision and stating the facts and law upon which it relies.
This shit isn't going to fly with the US SC. This is an obvious attempt to side step the 51 days means something other than 51 days problem. If the US SC can issue a written decision in 1-2 days after hearing oral arguments in the Bush v. Gore cases, so can the NJ SC.
The justices on the FL SC are pikers compared to the thugs on the NJ SC.
To: Liz
215
posted on
10/02/2002 3:48:55 PM PDT
by
TheDon
To: Jim Noble
Jay Severn says that the DNC plan, that he is aware of, is that the Lautenberg will step in and get elected. Three months after the election, he will step down, and the Governor will appoint Tortonilli to the Senate. Thus the Dems will continue to control the Senate and Torti will stay in office. From what he said, the fix is in and in place.
216
posted on
10/02/2002 3:49:01 PM PDT
by
vannrox
To: Howlin
I haven't been able to read the thread, so forgive me if this has already been said, but..........
In the end, might this not be a good thing? It stinks to high heaven and anyone can see that, but I have to assume that the reason Torricelli was behind is because even former supporters are sick of corruption. Doesn't it stand to reason that this cheating tactic by the Demoncrats will not go over well?
Why would it take votes away from Forrester or give votes to Lautenberg?
This way, a Republican can still win and the Dems have no issue.
I think it could be a positive, except for the little matter (uh-hem !!!) of judicial activism. But merely as it pertains to the November election, I think this could be a winner.
If yesterday was any example of Lautenberg's upcoming campaign, I think a monkey could beat him. He was barely coherent.
To: Peach; tpaine; OWK; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Mercuria; MadameAxe; redrock; Free Vulcan; ...
Considering that Republicans can't get their judges seated, it's no contest how these problems will resolve themselves in the future.How many of these judges were appointed by a Republican?
To: Peach
Re 87. YES!
219
posted on
10/02/2002 3:49:40 PM PDT
by
LaGrone
To: Southack
Ok, so the Demon_rat candidate loses. Then they sue in court and say, "But this election was illegal. We disobeyed the rules and you let us. We need a new election where Torch will run against Strom Thurmond. We will accept the results of that fair, legal, and binding process. Thank you and God bless America."
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 461-463 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