NJSC Dems can replace Tori's on ballot - Pubbies appealing

[Liz]

Pubbies may try for stay in circuit court.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I dunno. Pragmatically, I'm not so sure this is a high impact issue outside of NJ. Katherine Harris' snafu(did she really backdate a letter?) gives the Dems the perfect counter to defuse our righteous indignation. Irregardless of the fairness or comparability of the two cases, perception is what matters, and I have yet to see someone easily differentiate the two in a way that can quickly be understood by the average voter. 'Bait and Switch' is a good start, but harping too long on the NJ Supremes may not be very productive. Unanimous bipartisan ruling doesn't help, either.

I still say keep secession open as a long-term option. Dallas would make a great capitol for the Free Republic of America. Share a common defense, NAFTA, and language, but institute a Snowbird and flyover tax to pay for all election-related costs. Never forget!

[JulieRNR21]

Newt said on FOX that there is a Federal Law that absentee military ballots must be sent out 35 days prior to election day.... Newt says the USSC will have to hear it because of that law....he says they will overturn the NJSC.....hope he's correct.

[WarSlut]

I think he caved to pressure from the others to be unanimous on this.

Any judge that could be pressured into ignoring written law probably didn't require all that much pressuring to begin with.

[mlo]

This is only one part, but a very important part. Torch was chosen in a primary to be the Dem candidate. The voters did not choose Lautenberg. It was the Democratic party that chose Lautenberg, NOT the people. Therefore, the voters have not had equal protection. In fact, the voters have been usurped by a special interest group.

Torch withdrew. The law allows for that. The only problem is with the date, not with what they did. If your argument were valid it would mean they couldn't replace a candidate that wouldn't or couldn't run even if it happened before the deadline. It doesn't hold up. The law that established the procedure was in existence prior to this and it applies equally to everyone.

[mlo]

it is not clear. it is not like Florida.

It says you can replace a candidate with this procedure up to 51 days before the election. What isn't clear about that?

You are wrong about Florida being clearer. Florida's election statutes were confusing and in conflict with each other, and more than likely the whole case down there was argued and decided on the wrong statute. To hold Florida as an example of being clear law and this as not, that's just bizarre.

[Spiff]

THE SOLUTION: Every political party other than the Dems, including the Libertarians, Conservatives, Republicans and Greens, should demand that any of their candidates that happen to be trailing in the polls be replaced in the ballots by some other candidate.

You are so WRONG!

Even if the Democrats win every election from now on - we should never, ever be guilty ourselves of subverting the rule of law. It is they who will burn in hell for this. We are better than that - we know how fundamentally important the rule of law is to a civilized and free society and to individual liberty than to be dragged down into their criminal activities. And in all of this never forget the true purpose of the Second Amendment. If they keep this up for too long, and it comes to a certain point, free men will have no other recourse.

[RobbyS]

It is time to start asking ourselves what to do when the machinery of government has been corrupted? Maybe with the election of 1800, when Tammany Hall, led by Aaron Burr, marshalled a majority for the Democratic-republicans in New York.

[Reagan is King]

How many here think the Dems knew what decision they would get on this before it went before this court? I don't trust any of these scoundrels.

If we ever lose the few sane judges on the SCOTUS we are in deep, deep trouble.

[AFPhys]

The Republican Party in New Jersey need to select a race in which their candidate has no chance, and they need to have him withdraw TOMORROW, citing this ruling, and ask to substitute another candidate.

Absolutely. However, it doesn't have to be the Republicans, even.

[Truth29]

"Maybe with the election of 1800..."

Is you point that reform is hopeless?

[ezo4]

When the ballot box and the jury box are corrupt, the only recourse is to the ammo box....

nice!

[hobbes1]

The Court Did go wrong. By calling it a vacancy. THERE IS NO LEGAL VACANCY UNLESS TORICELLI RESIGNS.....

[FreeTheHostages]

Yes, the strongest legal argument isn't the plain language of the statute by the equal protection argument for absentee military ballots. (Isn't it just so NOT a coincidence that the Democrats always attack that vote?) There's not actually a law so much as an Attorney General directive that 35 days is the shortest practicable time.

Footnote: there could be other legal bases for challenge that arise if these NJ county clerks drag their feet now.

[1Old Pro]

What took so long? These Dem hacks ruled before they heard the evidence.

SHEESH, I hope the SCOTUS spanks them and makes them look silly.

[Theodore R.]

WOSG, Hispanics are now as strongly for KIRK as they are for SANCHEZ. They never even knew the underhanded things done against Victor Morales. sIt's a Democrat thing with the TX Hispanics.

[katana]

They actually and very regularly call us much worse. "Pubbies" is alright compared with "Fascist, Racist, Homophobic, Killers of the Eldery and Infirm".

[Protagoras]

Liz, please don't call Republicans pubbies. I know you don't mean it as an insult but it just isn't dignified.

ROTFLMAO,,,that's a good one! Thanks! We can't have the dignified Pubbies looking undignified.

You might want to grow a little thicker skin if you are going to be involved in politics. As the man said, "it ain't beanbags." LOL

[RobbyS]

My point is that the Founding Fathers were right: democracy is the corrupt form of popular government, It is possible to hold accountible an elected offical who sells his vote; it is virtually impossible to do the same with a myriad of voters. One can make the legislator go one record, but the secret ballot makes it impossible to do the same. It is possible to know if someone standing for office is an ignoramous, because he must take a stand on issues. It is impossible to require the same of the voter before he goes into the both. One must qualify as an office-holder; one need not even be alive to vote (absentee).

[RobbyS]

If Whitman's stock in the party was ever high, it is not now, because even moderates can see where her heart lies, because of the people she appointed to the NJSC.

[mr.sarcastic]

If Forrester announces on Friday that he IS going to the US Supreme Court, but he is NOT asking for any emergency relief, remember you heard it here, FIRST. If Forrester beats Lautenberg in the election like a rented mule, and then the US Supreme Court does the same to the NJ SC AFTER the election, it is a win-win-win proposition for the Republicans.

This is very intriguing. But let's say that Forrester does not ask for any emergency relief, and then Lautenberg and the corrupt Dem. machine win the election. If the USSC rules in favor of Forrester after the election, would there any recourse?