Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 461-463 next last
To: BubbaJunebug
this whole travesty has been planned out by the dems from torch's withdrawal to using lautenburg because of his name recognition to get elected knowing full well the demonrat court is in on the whole scheme. all New Jerseyans need to prove that we will not tolerate this--tell everyone to get out an vote Forrester.
P.S. McGreevy is as queer as a three dollar bill. This is a dirty little secret but true nonetheless. he is gay but apparently not proud enough to say it. LOSER.
241 posted on 10/02/2002 4:02:15 PM PDT by truthseeker101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BubbaJunebug
Did anyone really expect a different outcome?

Amen, brother.
There was no doubt where this was going.

"NOW is the time for ALL GOOD MEN to come to the aid of their (hijacked, overrun, beleaguered, Constitutional form of) government."

242 posted on 10/02/2002 4:04:20 PM PDT by CaptBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: America's Resolve
"The law should be LIBERALLY construed ..."

I'm gonna "LIBERALLY construe" the amount I owe on my next Tax payment. Instead of paying $5100.00 I'm gonna pay $3400.00. I'm sure the IRS will understand.

243 posted on 10/02/2002 4:04:59 PM PDT by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: xlib
He ran unopposed according to the results posted on the NJ Election Dept..... The Republicans had three candidates
244 posted on 10/02/2002 4:05:31 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Liz

This one is critical and timely.

Lautenberg voted AGAINST authorizing military action against Iraq.

Cut & Paste Link: http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1021/10212.htm

I repeat:

LAUTENBERG VOTED AGAINST OPERATION DESERT STORM


245 posted on 10/02/2002 4:06:07 PM PDT by ER_in_OC,CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MattinNJ
I forgive you! You are absolutely correct!

Since the meaning of is was challeged in a cout of law, the rest is now fair game and the only players are the dems.

We had better get our stuff in order! The war has begun.

246 posted on 10/02/2002 4:06:13 PM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Liz
How many hours you figure it'll be before Zogby's out with a poll showing Lautenberg leading Forrester?

Assuming no quick reversal by SCOTUS (and I'm not holding my breath), The Forrester camp, the NJGOP, the Republican National Committee et al had better adjust to the new circumstances, unsavory though they be. Save the pity party and the cries of "we wuz robbed"; there's work to be done. Forrester had better come out with some ads quick showing positive reasons to vote for him. No criticism implied regarding the previous anti-Torricelli ads -- they were appropriate, well done, and effective (maybe too effective?). But the ground has shifted under our feet.

This race is winnable. The $$$ should be there. Forrester appears to be an adequate speaker on the stump and on TV interviews, from what little I've seen; far superior to Lautenberg, who's really showing his age (79 in January). Appeal the decision, sure. But the campaign needs to be going at full speed immediately, and needs to be conducted on the assumption that all appeals will fail.

247 posted on 10/02/2002 4:07:22 PM PDT by southernnorthcarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee; wirestripper
Point this hypocrisy of the "Democrats" appointing their candidates after the primary. Bad ruling. It cannot stand. It sets very dangerous precedent.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I don't give a pass to the ruling. It DOES set a bad precedent.

That's why I made a point of saying "as it pertains to this election" and the likely outcome.

248 posted on 10/02/2002 4:07:49 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
The RATS are cunning, I'll give you that. But, there are many times that they have, in deparation, lit the dynamite and thrown it into the septic tank. The left never thinks about the consequences of what they do, and they do it in an inverse proportion to the urgency of the problem at hand. They are the party of sheer, emotional, spoiled brat, reaction.

Examples of my hypothesis:

RATS pass Johnson's GREAT SOCIETY in the 60s. Long fuse in this dynamite but thrown in the same septic tank. The system fails 30 years later and...BOOM...poop all over them. They must run a man that has the answer. He says that he will end welfare, as we know it. He is elected, pushes the biggest tax increase in history through a RAT congress (notice, there is a shorter fuse on this dynamite, but....same septic tank). The next election cycle the Republicans win the Congress. Why? Because the people are fed up. BOOM.....poop all over them again.

This time the fuse on the dynamite is very, very short. Strike match, light fuse...throw dynamite....an immediate BOOM/POOP. Very quick indeed.

Point here is this: Do we, the American People want to see a SCOTUS that is the mirror image of the states of FLA & NJ or do we want a SCOTUS that protects and preserves the Constitution of the United States? This is what the Senate is all about. That's why we need to take back the Senate.

What has just happened in NJ is only the start of these next 4 weeks. They have lots of dynamite and a whole bunch of septic tanks, but they got little bitty fuses.

249 posted on 10/02/2002 4:07:55 PM PDT by timydnuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
cout=court........ crap=democrats
250 posted on 10/02/2002 4:08:08 PM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Liz
What was the vote?
251 posted on 10/02/2002 4:09:22 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
I watched most of the court proceedings this morning and heard the result. Was I watching an episode of The Sopranos or just an episode of the Criminal Enterprise known as the DemocRAT party? Is there a difference.
252 posted on 10/02/2002 4:09:38 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
And the Court remaining of the view that the election statutes should be liberally construed to allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on Election Day. Catania v. Haberle, 123 N.J. 438, 448;

The voters have FULL choice... it's called a write-in vote. This is about promoting one party's chances in an election by subverting the primary election results. NJ Democrats are having their choice removed from the ballot. Even if the Torch decides he doesn't want to run anymore (a curious thought considering the effort that goes in to campaigning and winning a primary election), the voters chose who they wanted, and should be allowed to continue to support that choice in the full election. The name they choose gets the special recognition of being written on the ballot. Any other name must be written in.

The Democrat leaders want this policy changed so that the name THEY prefer will be promoted above all others, not the name the people want.

253 posted on 10/02/2002 4:10:19 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Unanimous. 7-0
254 posted on 10/02/2002 4:11:04 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Oh well...

Another one for the "Why am I NOT Surprised" file.

It was obvious that the fix with the N.J. Supreme was in from the start. I guess this goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, who, after all the flak and heartache they took following the Florida charlie-fox are going to be very reluctant to get their fingers burnt a second time.

I certainly hope however, that the Republican Party has the courage to press the case with extreme vigor and that the U.S. Supreme Court has the courage and fortitude to take it. The very idea that the rules can be changed this late in the election game is anathema to the very concept of fair and democratic elections. It should not be allowed to stand.

The DemonCRAPs once again show that they are utterly dispicable, totally untrustworthy and a threat to the very ideals of our nation's founding.

255 posted on 10/02/2002 4:11:08 PM PDT by Ronin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
Did not intend to be critical but to expand the point.
256 posted on 10/02/2002 4:11:21 PM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: justshe
I am SURE there is some polling agency already polling Forrester vs. Lautenberger. I am MOST interested in seeing those polls.

Ditto. I'm often a pessimist but I can't believe NJ voters will let the Democrats get away with this perversion. If Forrester has a solid lead it would be best for the GOP to not take this to SCOTUS; the spin doctors for the socialists would have a field day.

257 posted on 10/02/2002 4:11:41 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
What were the reasons? I didn't follow hsi campaign. Thanks.
258 posted on 10/02/2002 4:12:28 PM PDT by Chris_Patrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: inkling
I will not send a dime until the RNC comes out fighting. Why isn't the RNC on the TV and radio just raising hell about this? They want my money, they get it the old fashion way...they work fot it!
259 posted on 10/02/2002 4:12:37 PM PDT by engrpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Just win the Senate anyway. If Lautenberg wins, the GOP should refuse to seat him.

This makes a mockery of every election law ever passed by any legislature. That point needs to be mentioned in every newspaper in the country, by GOP leaders and from readers who write in.

I would hesitate getting the USSC involved prior to the election. That probably would be playing into the Dem hands.

Just beat Lautenberg, and then impeach the judges.

260 posted on 10/02/2002 4:12:49 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 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.

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