Skip to comments.
Just broke on Fox - Ashcroft questioning NJSC Rule
Fox News Television
| 10/03/02
| Brytani
Posted on 10/03/2002 5:37:24 PM PDT by Brytani
Fox news just reported, Ashcroft is asking NJ officials to explain why they are not following federal election laws in regards to military ballots in the switch and bait ruling.
This might get interesting
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: ashcroft; federalelectionlaw; helphasarrived; justicedepartment; militaryballots
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 261-278 next last
To: Senator Pardek
Road map time (again):
The United States Constitution specifically authorized the various states' legislatures to create the rules for the election of Senators, subject to (a) the Constitution itself (which trumps all) and (b) federal law (which specifically supersedes legislative law). Neither the New Jersey Legislature nor the US Congress has authorized the New Jersey judicial branch to allow or not allow ballot substitutions (indeed, the only role the NJ judiciary has, implicit at that, regarding this is to determine whether a candidate is qualified for office).
The entry of the Jersey Supreme Idiots, specifically their vacation of NJ election law with respect to the Senate election, is patently un-Constitutional. Toss in the fact that the balloting process has already started prior to the rules changes (a major argument of the majority of SCOTUS in 2000) and this should actually be an airtight case.
To: BOBWADE
Federal law says ballots must be mailed sufficient early enough that they can be returned by election day. However two concent decrees specify this drop date to be 35 days before the election.
Florida and Missouri (I believe) both signed concent decres aggreing to have this in their state laws. Florida was sued over this again in 2000 for ignoring the law and sending out the ballots late.
It was funny seeing this judge just dismiss these concent decrees out of hand. They didn't support what they were going to do so she wouldn't even listen to it. She basically went on to say the greater good would be served by giving 2,000,000 NJ voters the right to choose Lautenburg than 1,900 service men and other oversea people. All of the justices refused to admit the Torch was still legally a candidate as state law forbids him from withdrawing 51 days prior to an election. They just said well legal or not he is obviously not a real candidate. She made the same argument about the ballots that had already been received and would be received as a result of mailing that had gone out. I guess only Democrat votes count in New Jersey and to hell with the military.
To: Chemist_Geek
Unlike the Democrats, we do have principles. The problem you discuss above is that of tactics and "strategery." Our tactics must be sly and shrewd and so cunning you could pin a tail on them and call them weasels, so that our strategery may be executed. Pristine moral purity will be accompanied by utter political powerlessness. It's like the endless GOA vs. NRA debates...I'm all for being sly and shrewd to get what you want politically. But this isn't politics, this is upholding the rule of law as it concerns elections. The people can read the law, they know what it's for. All we have to do is hold the Dems accountable to it.
183
posted on
10/03/2002 9:10:21 PM PDT
by
#3Fan
To: Brytani
You are 100% correct regarding the the issue of getting absentee ballots out to military personnel. Indeed, the 1985 change to the New Jersey law, which extended the time from 34 days to 51 days wherein no changes could be made on the ballot was in response the requirements of the Federal law. The NJ Supreme Court completely overlooked (or completely disregarded) that aspect of the legislative history.
If the Federal Courts are going to issue a stay to the NJ State Supreme Court, it will certainly be about this issue.
To: RJCogburn
Thanks. I cranked The Man Who Knew into TIVO and will
be recording it at 3:00AM. Looking at upcoming episodes,
the next Frontline is called 'Missle Wars.' That looks
like worth watching, too.
185
posted on
10/03/2002 9:21:25 PM PDT
by
gcruse
To: #3Fan
The New Jersey "Soprano Court" ruled in favor of the Democratic Party whose Senate candidate was way behind in the polls. Torricelli stated at the televised press conference that the reason he was wanting to withdraw from the Senate election was to retain the Democratic majority in the Senate.
With an unanimous verdict, the "robed judges" decided that the laws of the State of New Jersey could be construed to mean that 51 days really meant anything that was "reasonable."
And to think that according to Clinton, what is meant by "is," is whatever he means it to be.
Are we now in a new era where the rule of law as clearly stated by the legislature can be circumvented by a politicized judiciary simply to retain a "Democratic majority in the Senate."
Got to give the electorate a choice, you know! What about the choices that were made by the primary voters . . . are they now simply disenfranchised?
Why hold a primary election at all? Simply have the party bosses select a nominee and then replace that nominee with another more popular candidate several times up to the close of the polls on election day.
Or maybe, they should just forget all nominees and just vote for a party and let the party bosses decide whom to send to Congress.
In my opinion, the "robed judges" have totally undermined the concept of the rule of law and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey as well as that of the United States. Welcome to the "rule of power!"
This is what revolutions are ultimately made of! For when principles are no longer important to those in power but only the preservation of that power, eventually, the citizens revolt
The Torricelli case and the Mink case in Hawaii in which Representative Mink is now deceased but is expected to win show the total lack of principle relating to "electorate choice" that exists in the Democratic party.
The overriding consideration is not justice or reasonableness but simply a game of numbers.
186
posted on
10/03/2002 9:24:12 PM PDT
by
rollin
To: isthisnickcool
And they have no right to appoint Lautenberg as the "new" candidate. They do until 51 days before the election. The NJ Legislature has spoken on that.
187
posted on
10/03/2002 9:25:34 PM PDT
by
copycat
To: rollin
You're right. The 5% Democratic vote fraud, shenanigans in Florida 2000, Florida primary 2002, Missouri 2000, Hawaii 2002, and now New Jersey is pushing this country very close to taxation without representation. And we know what happened the last time that phrase was cried. That's why it's so important for the "controlling authority" to put a stop to this election law-breaking behaviour.
188
posted on
10/03/2002 9:35:59 PM PDT
by
#3Fan
To: Cooter
When a person is elected Senator in a
special election, they can assume the seat (if they are not already holding it) as soon as the election is certified. Since this is an election for the seat in its normal cycle, the Senate does not necessarily have to accept the Senator-elect until the beginning of the new session (although it has been customary to do so). In the US Senate, the Senator-elect is required to "present his/her credentials."
Each house of Congress has Constitutional authority to determine their own membership. They can throw members out and refuse to seat potential members for cause. The last time this happened in the Senate, I believe (and this is from the cobwebs of my memory of US history), was back around the time of post Civil War reconstruction.
If the Republicans win a sufficient number of seats in the Senate to form a clearcut majority, they could conceivably refuse to seat Lautenberg, if Lautenberg wins. They could instead seat the legal candidate who received the highest number of legal votes. There is no judicial review of this process.
Of course, such a move would require the new Majority Leader to actually have some vertebrae.
To: jonathonandjennifer
Gee, did the whiners convince you to change your cartoon icon to this line drawing to save "band width"? I liked the previous, full color drawings better, FWIW.
Nah. I liked the old drawing, too...
...and I may go back to it. The bandwidth argument is rather specious, imho. I just happen to like Production I.G.'s interpretation of Major Kusanagi (see above). Now if I get a boffo color screenshot that's from Ghost In the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, I'll use that. But it has to be a manageable size. I used this as a header a couple of times....
...a screenshot that is waaay too big.
So rest assured, the whiners had nothing to do with my decison to go to the line drawing. I happen to like it.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
To: FreeReign
The Democrats use the legal system to thwart the law, so naturally they'll raise hell if the Ashcroft tries to use the legal system to enforce the law.
The Dems are like the drunk who tell the cops after a bar fight, "It all started when the other guy hit me back".
To: FreeReign
The Democrats use the legal system to thwart the law, so naturally they'll raise hell if the Ashcroft tries to use the legal system to enforce the law.
The Dems are like the drunk who tell the cops after a bar fight, "It all started when the other guy hit me back".
To: Inkie
If someone else has already addressed this I apologize, but in defense of Katherine Harris, my understanding is that the laws governing the resignation changed. The Secretary of State of Florida was a formerly elected postion and it was a requirement that one resign an elected position in order to run for another. Harris was elected in 1998. In 2000, the voters approved an amendment changing the office of Secretary of State to one appointed by the Governor. Resignation was not a requirement anymore. They are saying that she thought the new law applied to her and not the old law. If anyone else has any new/better information,please share.
To: byteback
The issue in question is a federal one and gives the DoJ authority to pursue it...
To: Political Junkie Too
Since this is all happening before the votes are cast, people are seeing the manipulations out in the open before the fact, and they are disgusted. I don't think traditional Democrat rally cries will work this time, especially given the contradictory arguments between the ballots in NJ and the ballots in HI. I've been waiting for reaction from NJ and the only AP article I saw said that they see this as shady. I'm hoping the ruling stands and Forrester wins anyway. The GOP has to keep this in the news and leave the stink there for all to smell. This also shows who it is that wants to play by the established rules and who wants to make their own.
To: zook
Maybe we ought to just give them so much to "spin" that their heads just twist off. Keep them busy.
Yet - we tend to try and avoid a situation that will be spun against us. We just need to continually deflect, deflect, deflect with a dem miscue everytime they mention the spin. Same as Alan does on Hannity & Colmes.
196
posted on
10/04/2002 1:02:00 AM PDT
by
ClancyJ
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
Tom, do I have to do this again---WE ARE WINNING--unless the Rats find pictures of Forrester doing something with a goat, he will beat Lautenberg. Frankie was a record and it ain`t very special. Have faith
To: Arkinsaw
Somebody told me once, "All that's required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Makes sense to me.
To: RJCogburn
It's kind of hard for people to question Ashcroft's concern about military voting rights, wouldn't you say? For example, Georgia is in trouble for being behind its own state imposed schedule, and that was an accident. New Jersey, on the other hand, had a court that deliberately disregarded its own state-imposed deadline, and it's not necessarilly possible for all the soldiers to get the new ballots in time.
You might see an angry media make negative spin, but the conservative news sources can easilly clear this up in half a segment.
To: Williams
I'm not sure which precise law New Jersey is violating, but one thing is darn certain, until it's clear that EVERY soldier has a ballot with time to mail it back for the election, until that time, it is right and proper for an attorney general to be concerned. Once they get their ballots ON TIME, then it is time for Ashcroft to consider saying, "Mission accomplished." FReegards....
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 261-278 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