Skip to comments.
Sen. Robert Torricelli will retain his Senate Seat - Jay Severn 96.6 FM Talk
96.9 FM Talk Radio - Boston, MA 07:35 PM
| 10-02-02
| Vannrox commentary on Jay Severn Statement
Posted on 10/03/2002 9:11:34 AM PDT by vannrox
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
To: vannrox; All
It is apparently planned, that by law the Governor would then have to appoint a replacement Senator. It is supposed to be Sen. Robert Torricelli, and as shocked as many who heard this is expected to be, it is anticipated that the outrage would be short lived and forgoten. Because the Senator would have six years (minus two months) for the people to forget about this event. Further, it would be unlikely that any court would rule against a Governor appointment by law, no matter how blatently corrupt. If McGreevy appoints anyone, there is a special election in the next election, example November 2004 there would be an election to see who fills the seat for the rest of the term ending in 2008. Current example, widder Canahan has to defend her seat 2 years after being appointed.
To: vannrox
Because the Senator would have six years (minus two months) for the people to forget about this event. Check New Jersey law on this. In most states the appointed senator serves only to the next general election. That would be in two years (minus two months) and would that be enough for the stink to die down?
Election laws aside I think that the whole theory is ridiculous. Oh, it wouldn't surprise me that if Lautenberg won he would step down for a replacement. But I would be amazed if it were the Torch. Where is the advantage to putting him back in? Is his popularity that great? Is he the only person in the state who thinks he is Senate material? Are you trying to tell me that every Democrat politician in New Jersey thinks Torricelli can win while they could not? Of course not. The Torch is toast. Any replacement would probably be another Democrat without the baggage, but without name enough to win in this election. An appointment would give him the chance to get the name recognition for a reelection run.
It's fun to believe that the Democrats are completely stupid, but the sad reality is that they aren't. And this scenario is as stupid as they come.
To: babble-on
Pallone had better check with his wife first!
To: dubyaismypresident
Actually, a special election would be held in 2003 in NJ since NJ has odd year statewide elections.
24
posted on
10/03/2002 9:29:23 AM PDT
by
ambrose
To: vannrox
There are no even decimals in American FM radio, it is either 96.5 FM or 96.7 FM.
To: SternTrek
The average citizen won't stand for this Don't bet on it. The is the land of the clueless where life revolves around television, malls, and movies.
To: ambrose
Actually, a special election would be held in 2003 in NJ since NJ has odd year statewide elections. Ok, I'll ammend that to November 2004 at the latest, could be sooner. Leave it to McGreevey to push it off as long as humanly possible.
To: twigs
My fear is that Bill Clinton would fill the seat (yes, apparently he's qualified)
Let's just say he meets the legal requirements for the job. He isn't QUALIFIED for any position of trust.
To: areafiftyone
Gives new meaning to the term "Court Jesters"
29
posted on
10/03/2002 9:35:22 AM PDT
by
GOPJ
To: SternTrek
"Unless he's outted by then"
Could you please expand on this?
To: vannrox
There would be a special election in '04, just like the one the widder Carnahan is going through right now.
I have changed my mind on this, and think that the GOP ought to appeal. It's a pretty obvious constitutional violation, moreso than Florida.
Here's the argument:
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution provides: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof..."
The NJSC has violated the US Constitution without a doubt. The NJSC has discretion to interpret the language of the legislature's laws relating to elections. The NJSC has no discretion to rewrite the laws.
31
posted on
10/03/2002 9:40:49 AM PDT
by
Defiant
Man this is the BEST Sopranos episode I've EVER seen!
To: governsleastgovernsbest
There have been strong rumors (just rumors) that the Gov in NJ likes all peoples... From what I hear it was started by the State Police because he appointed someone from outside the organization as their director.
To: vannrox
This opinion, as you may recall, stated that even though the law specifically stated otherwise, and that even though the law was written for exactly this kind of event, it was invalid. They ruled that the Democrat Party can place anyone they wished on the ballot, in deference to the rule of law. That they can do this independently of time or of reason.
In "defiance of" the rule of law?
34
posted on
10/03/2002 9:48:50 AM PDT
by
aruanan
To: vannrox
I'd like to have something a bit more substansive that what Jay Severin thinks before I give this any credence.
35
posted on
10/03/2002 9:51:44 AM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: Keith in Iowa
I believe this is in error - as an appointment would only last until the next general election - they'd have to elect someone to fill the rest of the term in '04.
Yes, and considering that "next general election" after a person resigns from or dies in office is the one after the death or resignation, the next general election is the one in November. So if Torricelli resigned now, his replacement would be able to have about a month in office.
36
posted on
10/03/2002 9:52:07 AM PDT
by
aruanan
To: SternTrek
OK, thanks.
To: vannrox
Provided that I believed that the Democrat Party cared how they looked in the eyes of the voting public. But from what I see, the kind of voters that vote Democrat now-a-days would applaud this kind of action. The Dems will do risky things if there's a pay-off at the end. For instance, this NJ move is undoubtedly risky, but the pay-off is they might keep a Dem seat and ultimately control of the Senate.
What would the pay-off be to put Torricelli back into his old seat instead of a relatively clean new politician?
38
posted on
10/03/2002 10:02:04 AM PDT
by
Coop
To: vannrox
". . . ruled that the Democrat Party can place anyone they wished on the ballot, in deference to the rule of law. From Marriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (online):
Main Entry: def·er·ence
Pronunciation: 'de-f&-r&n(t)s, 'def-r&n(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 1660
: respect and esteem due a superior or an elder; also : affected or
ingratiating regard for another's wishes
synonym see HONOR
- in deference to : in consideration of
39
posted on
10/03/2002 10:03:51 AM PDT
by
Abcdefg
To: vannrox; FreedominJesusChrist; Scholastic
If this is true, it represents unbelievable long-term treachery on a scale previously seen only by the Communists in their bid to take over the world one country at a time (with Brazil as the latest victim)! Jay Severin is one hell of an astute commentator so I actually give this prediction some credence.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 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