Fox News says Supreme Court Allows Lautenberg!

[Howlin]

It's done!

[MattinNJ]

While I think this actually plays out better for Forrester (it would have fired up the Dem base by having SCOTUS interfere)I am disgusted to be a lawyer. There is no law. The new Jersey Statute was clear and Article I section IV is clear. It's official-we are no longer a nation of laws-it's all politics. While I don't mind getting hosed by a small time Judge on some municipal matter because I don't have home field advantage, I really thought the NJSC and SCOTUS would do the right thing. No wonder people hate lawyers

[KsSunflower]

NJ is too top loaded with registered democrats. Couple that with the fact that there is little to no moral outrage for anything anymore.

I will be immensely surprised if the voters in NJ march to the polls in great numbers to do the right thing and show the democrats. Maybe hardline repubs will, but for the most part the sheeple will listen to the dems and their arguments for choice and vote for a known (lautenberg) over an unknown (Forrester) and that will be that.

[fire and forget]

That's a powerful issue although it's weakened now that the SCOTUS has in a sense legitimized what the SCONJ did. Think I'll take the rest of today off. I'm so discouraged now, not sure how much good I'll do. Been dying to hear SOMETHING from the SCOTUS over the weekend. Dems are rejoicing right now that they've been handed a leg up by the courts at the expense of the Constitution. We who play by the rules are at an extreme disadvantage. The other side that doesn't play by the rules is often allowed to get away with it, even when they're caught red-handed.

At least we should be able to expect some sort of explanation from conservatives on the high court and Lautenberg might still be beaten at the polls.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I was expecting this. In the Presidential Election it was a matter of a FEDERAL Election. This is a State matter.

Lets hope the people of NJ have enough SENSE to realize how dangerous a precedence this sets, and VOTE for the party that played by the rules.

Personally I think this is going to make the voting process chaotic. If your candidate is losing, just change candidates at the last minute!! I hope this backfires on the Democrats so much their collective heads spin.

What a bunch of hypocrits. First they complain that the Supreme Court won the election for President Bush, then they think it is just fine to have the NJ Sups disrupt an election in NJ. Now thats rich!! It has been the DIMocRATS all along who have thwarted these two elections!! You can't have it both ways DIMocRATS!!

[steveegg]

I say, throw the whole damn election process into chaos.

While I might be inclined to agree, the RATs have the advantage in returning members, 36-29-1 (plus Ma Carnahan if she survives in Missouri). If the seats remain vacant (which CAN Constitutionally be done), then we lose big-time.

[AAABEST]

You used to be so ...uh ...moderate.

You seem to have a little more fire about you lately. Is that my imagination?

[Mixer]

Well we knew they wouldn't take the case and the law has been ignored. Now NJ has to vote republican to show the courts that they can not do this.

[Pravious]

"I dunno if it's worth bothering to 'vote' in rat controlled districts anymore, they won't count it. "

Good point. I live in NJ, and all of the voting machines are now electronic. Having gotten away with the bait-and-switch, I wouldn't be surprised to see the RATS emboldened enough to cheat all the way down the line.. I mean, who's going to oversee the integrity of the voting process, when the only recourse we victims might have is to take them to court - and the court is corrupt from the bottom on up.

[Howlin]

You can't blame this on the lawyers. This little idea was hatched by the Democrat POLITICIANS.

And the only thing now is winning.

[concerned about politics]

Forrester

democrats are emotional. Maybe he could get the sympathy vote.

[MeekOneGOP]

a thousand pardons for the language.....

---

Things Robert Torricelli Caught Saying on Tape in Mob Pizza Parlor #1 Hey, kid. Park my Lincoln town car, and when you bring it back, make sure it's a Mercedes #2 I want you to gather together the heads of all the five families. #3 Leave the gun, take the cannoli #4 The f**k, they burned it #5 Absofreakinlutley #6 I was outta line. I'm sorry. But she was a whoooooooore #7 Yes, Bernie. It's true. Bianca took pineapple on her slice #8 Corzine, you interrupt me again, I'm going to cut off your balls. You got that Richie Rich? #9 Okay, one more slab, and then we'll go by the Hoffa off ramp #10 Yeah, my father's family's from Corleone, Sicily. What's so funny?

[tip of the sword]

Make SCOTUS do it again in Federal Court and spit in the military's face, I don't think they have the brass ones to do it twice..

[RooRoobird14]

Did anyone here really think the SCOTUS was going to intervene? I didn't. They're gun-shy after the 2000 Presidential election.

All is not lost--I think we're going to take back the Senate anyway, in spite of those cheating, thieving, lying Dumb@ssocrats.

[KsSunflower]

The problem is that the "greater pool" who didn't think it seemed fair, will figure..."Well, if the Supreme Court didn't see fit to overturn what happened, it must have been ok."

They have no mind of their own...they are sheeple. And they are sheeple who are heavily slanted toward the democrats. Have you seen the voter registration??

[ClancyJ]

If the Supreme Court rules that it is not against the law - it is not against the law. Therefore, we are not breaking the law.

Why should we stick to a law that is declared not a law?

We need to fight the dems - not give them the country.

[xJones]

Monday, Monday
Can't trust that day...

[afz400]

Just a feeling, but I think Lautenberg is going to put his foot in his mouth like Daschle did with his temper tantrum, and will end up losing. Pride comes before a fall.

[Howlin]

Promise???

[finnman69]

ROFL...love that pic "OR ELSE!"

That could be a geat FReeping sign in NJ for Lautenberg.

VOTE LAUTENBERG OR ELSE!

[Huck]

You used to be so ...uh ...moderate. You seem to have a little more fire about you lately. Is that my imagination?

I guess it's possible. This particular mess has me fired up. Then again, maybe your impression of me was off to begin with, or maybe I misrepresented myself. Who knows? One thing I can affirm is that I am still learning, so my attitude has continued to change on things, moreso on political questions than ideological ones, I would say, i.e., I interpret the Constitution the same way, but I might derive a different conclusion about what party to vote for now, based on political estimations. Make sense?