Posted on 10/04/2002 4:41:56 AM PDT by Neckbone
When did we become a nation of whiners? At what point, upon commission of what act, did the same nation that put man on the moon become a bunch of litigious children? These questions are posed with equal parts rhetoric and sincerity. It was in the not too distant past that lawsuits were rare, and the Rule of Law held sway over those disputes contentious enough to warrant one. Lawsuits are now viewed as the Way to Get Your Way. Outcomes that were once self-evident are now hotly contested after the fact. And why is this? Because as often as not the loser wins in the end.
Those of clear eye and lucid mind watched in abject horror last night as New Jersey’s Supreme Court held the first live and televised rape of the electorate. In possibly the most disturbing example of reality television yet, the Rule of Law was summarily executed without trial and rent asunder by the gibbering, clapping Democratic horde. An exaggeration you say?
The Senate race in New Jersey consisted of two candidates- Democrat Bob Torricelli and Republican Doug Forrester. The Democrats knew that Torricelli was a crook, but decided to run him anyway because New Jersey is an overwhelmingly liberal state. It turned out that, much to the chagrin of the Democrats, the New Jersey voters were more aware of their surroundings than anyone thought and “The Torch” Torricelli started to tank in the polls. Panicked that they were going to lose the race, the Democrats then decided to pull their “bad” candidate in favor of one more likely to win.
But here’s the problem:
There happened to be a really inconvenient law on the books in New Jersey that had been written to prevent exactly this situation. The law as it turns out, states that any candidate that pulls out of the race within 51 days of the election cannot be replaced by their party. Seems pretty unambiguous, right? A similarly-worded rule prevents my 6 year-old son from having ice cream for dinner and he seems to comprehend it pretty well. Lacking a six year-old’s grasp of the Rule of Law, however, the Democrats immediately filed suit to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Their argument? That the law requires a “liberal interpretation” in order for the voters to “have a choice.”
I can’t be the only one who sees that the voters made their choice clear through the polls- the Democrats just didn’t like the answer.
While egregious, this is in no way a precedent. As exhibited by our own Connecticut Attorney General Dick Blumenthal; a Democrat, when cornered, will sue. They will sue quickly and with the taxpayer’s money. They will continue suing and disrupting The Process until they get their way, regardless of the cost. Please consider the following simple timeline which illustrates the increasingly profane buggering that the Democratic Party is giving to the American people and our system of jurisprudence:
1974 – The nation stands in stunned disbelief as New Hampshire Democrat John Durkin, in response to losing the state’s Senatorial race, proceeds to contest the election results and file suit for a recount. The state’s Ballot Law Commission was called in and, after recounting all the ballots, declared Republican Louis Wyman the clear victor- again. Although no evidence of fraud was ever discovered, Durkin still continued to contest the results resulting in over seven months of debates and 35 inconclusive roll-call votes.
1980 – The Indiana house race was stalled by the assertions of wrongdoing and threats of litigation of the defeated Democratic incumbent Frank McClosky. Even after the Secretary of State certified Republican Richard McIntyre’s victory, the Democratic House refused to seat him, miring the legislative process in a four-month long taxpayer funded tantrum.
2000 – An exciting year for Democrat lawsuits! First came the much-celebrated drain on resources orchestrated by defeated Democratic Presidential candidate Albert Gore (and let’s not forget Jesse Jackson- wherever there’s taxpayer money to be taken there’s Jesse!). Then suddenly the Dems had more lawsuits than they did definitions of the word “is.” One notable lawsuit filed by the Democrats in Missouri claimed “widespread voter disenfranchisement.” When the suit was examined, however, it turns out that the plaintiff was technically dead. That is, deceased. And had been for some time. Way to do your research, boys.
2002 – Florida, already identified as the wellspring of Liberal genius, becomes once again the site of Democratic litigation. This time however the battle is between the two Democratic candidates in that state’s Gubernatorial primary- Janet Reno and Bill McBride. After losing the primary Reno consulted the party playbook but, realizing with horror that her mojo wouldn’t work on another Democrat, instead turned her ire on Republican Governor Jeb Bush. Seems her loss was once again due to voter disenfranchisement, and she was certain a Republican had to be behind it somewhere.
Anyone who has witnessed a screaming child being handed an ice cream cone to shut them up has witnessed the Democratic strategy for dealing with a losing candidate. The problem is that the child is hauled out of the mall and stuffed into a mini van, destined to remain a problem only to its over-indulgent parents. On the other hand the Democratic leadership, after the wails die down and the tears dry up, remain a serious problem for us all.
At least that's the way I see it.
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.