"...Wouldn't you say, Number Two?..."
"YES, DR. EVIL! HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!"
Posted on 10/07/2002 10:53:40 AM PDT by Howlin
It's done!
"...Wouldn't you say, Number Two?..."
"YES, DR. EVIL! HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!"
While I think it is despicable for a state to ignore it's own laws, to circumvent the election process, in most instances I'd allow it. If they make the rules, they have a right to change them. However, in this instance they even didn't do that. That's what's so wrong with this. They didn't abide by their own rules. Further they didn't change the rules to allow what is taking place. They simply allowed what is taking place to go ahead. What a stinker. Anotherwords, if the Republicans were to try this in future, the state supreme court could rule against them based on the laws on the books.
The states have a right to set their own laws. And abiding by those laws, they have a right to loft whoever their voting residents select. But states don't have the right to circumvent their own rules, subverting the process to favor one political party. Still, state supreme courts should be allowed to make judgements involving state business even if those judgements are wrong. However, if this judgement involving a federal office is allowed, all manner of manipulations would now be possible. It would be open season for Democrats to interfere with all manner of election processes.
When it comes to elections involving federal offices, the Supreme Court of the United States should insure a fair and orderly process. In this instance the SCOTUS failed to do so. I think that was a mistake.
What we have here is yet another example of Republican appointments coming back to haunt us. When seven of nine appointments to the court have been made by our side and we still can't get strict Constitutionalists in there, what's that tell you?
States do not have the right to subvert federal elections. I would hope that Republican appointees to the US Supreme Court would know this. This is a federal issue, not a state issue. The SCOTUS does have standing, yet refused to protect the sanctitiy of federal office selection processes. Big mistake.
Nobody is mad that The Imperial Federal government forces State Legislatures to pass certain laws in exchange for highway money.
How nice of the federal extortionists to return to the people 66 cents on the dollar they stole from them in the first place, but, BUT only if the State legislatures tow the line for the federal government. If the State legislatures don't do what the federal government says the people will be lucky to see 33 cents of their extorted dollars returned to them. The State legislatures are co-conspirators in the federal government extortion racket. The State government also has its own extortion racket.
Replace all federal and state income taxes with consumption tax. That's the surest and quickest means to pulling the economy out of it's slide toward a depression while at the same time initiating a boom economy.
Offices for U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators are federal offices and federal elections are held to fill them.
I don't understand your comment. We obeyed election laws in Florida, and tried to obey the election laws in NJ. Why would we be two faced for obeying the law both times. Please explain you post.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think this is judicial activism at its worst - a terrible decision on the part of the NJ Supremes. But I also don't see what authority the SCOTUS has to hear a case regarding internal state politics. If SCOTUS were to overturn NJ's ruling they would need to employ judicial activism to reverse...judicial activism.
Well, I guess I this means that concealed carry is OK in NJ now. Man, for a while there I thought I would have to move to PA.
This is true. Democrats' strength is finding the most remotely-acceptable limit of law. What they have done here is totally circumvent a written statute. What many do not realize in the republican camp is that they have exposed themselves as de-regulators.
Think about it folks. The primary system was created and pushed by democrats. The return of the "smoke filled room" is something democrats have whaled about and whined about in order to force public primary (and eventually OPEN primary) elections for their benefit.
Now the rats have shown that primaries are meaningless and pointless. Republicans with an ounce of testosterone would seize upon this moment to call for the end of primary elections and go back to convention nominations, etc. Saving massive amounts of dollars in the process, by the way.
Whether my suggestion is even close or not...we must remember that the democrats' sucker punch leaves "something" open. We just need to identify it, be patient, and look for the next opening to counter.
If nothing else, we can ask them HOW they expect us to follow through with CFR when they can't even respect current law.
He publically agreed to 21 debates. Push to get him out there!"
If Loudbird won't debate the 21 times, Forrester should debate a dummy with the dummy's replies being his past voting record and previous quotes on the various subject matter. WE should define the RAT, not the other way around. How does this sound to ya'll?
Nam Vet
I gather you are kidding. The NJ law was very specific. Activist courts will negate any law they please... what they say is the law, the legislature is irrelevant.
One of the minor party candidates in NJ should file suit to effect a ballot replacement, and you watch this fraudulent court issue an opinion of utter hypocrisy... they will say with a straight face that the legislature imposed a 51-day deadline.
Activist courts give not a shred of allegiance to our constitutional principles, most especially that of separation of powers.
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.