Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News says Supreme Court Allows Lautenberg!

Posted on 10/07/2002 10:53:40 AM PDT by Howlin

It's done!


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: benny; corpse; election; forrester; gulla; lautenberg; nj; oldfart; oldman; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 601-603 next last
To: njmaugbill
It's not the Democratic party anymore. The Clinton virus has infected the body politic,and the Democratic party shall be know forever more as the Clinton party.

Fear not. It's the Lord sorting souls. Democrats in the "down" elevator, Saints going up. LOL.

241 posted on 10/07/2002 11:46:26 AM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
I suspect that Forrester would be "afraid" to take on Lautenberg. It is my understanding that Forrester lacks a coherent philosopy and vision himself. He can't win without projecting what he believes to the voters. He will be the "nice guy," and he will lose.
242 posted on 10/07/2002 11:47:23 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
I no longer feel bound by the rule of law. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to go out on a shooting spree or bank robbing spree. But those "how to live your life" laws, like speed limits, jay-walking, taxes, traffic lights, handicapped parking, helmets, land use etc. no longer apply. The risk of getting caught is all that will stop me, when the risk seems great (like there is a cop right there). Since there really is no longer a rule of law, it's all just a game now.

Kind of puts one in mind of the thesis in "The Decline of the Roman Empire"

243 posted on 10/07/2002 11:47:25 AM PDT by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Dog
>>When that sleazy SOB lied to that federal grand jury.... and they defended it .....is the day the rule of law died in this country!!!!!!!!!!!<<

Until today, this was technically a local issue. It is now national.

I no longer feel bound by the rule of law. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to go out on a shooting spree or bank robbing spree. But those "how to live your life" laws, like speed limits, jay-walking, taxes, traffic lights, handicapped parking, helmets, land use etc. no longer apply. The risk of getting caught is all that will stop me, when the risk seems great (like there is a cop right there).

Since there really is no longer a rule of law, it's all just a game now.
244 posted on 10/07/2002 11:47:35 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wilmington2
Rush reported a new Democrat poll where Lautenberg leads by 6%. He didn't comment on the fact that it looks like Lauetenberg lost half of his "support" in just a few days.
245 posted on 10/07/2002 11:47:39 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
It won't be enough to just remind voters of Lousenberg's votes, they need to hear some of his WRONG opinions as to why he voted no. Such as the THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN DEAD COMING HOME IN BODY BAGS due to the Gulf War......

He supposedly is the father of the toxic waste fund which as intended turned out to be WINDFALL profits for lawyers and continued contaminated sites for citizens.

246 posted on 10/07/2002 11:47:40 AM PDT by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Nice timing on the Constitutional citation of Article I, Section 4. See my #225.



247 posted on 10/07/2002 11:47:54 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Huck; Sabertooth; Howlin
Actually, I had planned to move to PA about 6 months ago. Hopefully, our closing is next week.

A new New Jersey Joke...

-- Knock, Knock
"Who's there?"
"Torricelli."
"Torricelli who?"
"Lautenberg."

248 posted on 10/07/2002 11:48:20 AM PDT by lds23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Are you kidding?

Have you seen Louenbergs record on Iraq? and Terrorism.

Right after the Presidents Speech tonite, Forrester better start hammering that record home.

249 posted on 10/07/2002 11:48:28 AM PDT by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Dog
"I am a NJ voter and I will crawl to the polls if I have to on election day!!!!!"

Me too. I'll belly crawl through broken glass to vote for Forrester. I have to do my part to cancel out the voter fraud that will surely take place in Dem. precincts.

250 posted on 10/07/2002 11:48:29 AM PDT by Constitutional Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: lds23
ROTFLMAO!
251 posted on 10/07/2002 11:49:00 AM PDT by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: tm22721
I agree that we have no moral high ground with this ruling. I was concerned this would happen, however, how could we as believers in the "rule of law" sit by and allow the dems to get away with it without even trying to put a stop to something so blatently wrong???

"Evil prevails when the good do nothing." Well we tried, but sometimes it seems that evil prevails anyway.
252 posted on 10/07/2002 11:49:07 AM PDT by KsSunflower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: dan909
the IR pulled Grunseth and replaced him with the primary runner-up

The two situations are not comparable. Lautenfraud was NOT even IN the primary. He was resurrected by the Dems as someone who had the biggest chance of winning.

253 posted on 10/07/2002 11:49:17 AM PDT by PLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
I agree. It's one thing to honor states internal decision processes. It's another when it comes to allowing them to circumvent federal elections. I'd say the Trent Lott comparison is quite accurate. Trent has company in the Senate, and evidently on the US Supreme Court.
254 posted on 10/07/2002 11:49:50 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
Not saying I agree with that arguement, however on some of the talks shows in Jersey, the were reading the language in the New York statue and it provided no wiggle room for a sham.
255 posted on 10/07/2002 11:49:53 AM PDT by sonrise57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: PLK
I agree, this has basically nullified the entire primary process.

It matters not to the democratic political machine what its registered rank and file say, they have wasted the time and nullified the vote of all who turned out for the primary.
256 posted on 10/07/2002 11:51:41 AM PDT by KsSunflower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
"Four of the NJ judges were appointed by a republican"

A NJ "Republican", which is basically a democrat who has not been nominated by his party, but still wants to run for office.

257 posted on 10/07/2002 11:51:42 AM PDT by Constitutional Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
LOL. Under that argument every state election law is kept in place at the whim of Congress. Let me say that again. To you, and not the Constitution, every state law determining how Congressional officials are elected is only at the whim of the Congressional officials that would be directly affected by same said laws. This is not what that article was meant to cover

Tell me, under judicial review SCOTUS has the right to interpret federal laws. However, state courts have no right to interpret state laws? This would never be happening if the Seventeenth Amendment were in place anyway

258 posted on 10/07/2002 11:52:05 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I guess my optimism was for nothing. Hear I thought the rule of law would prevail, but instead the rule of crooks has prevailed instead.

Pandora's box is finally open and now we will an even faster slide towards chaos. Thank you USSC!

259 posted on 10/07/2002 11:52:07 AM PDT by mrb1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
The supreme court acted properly in refusing to become involved in what is a state issue. The problem is the New Jersey sumpreme court.
260 posted on 10/07/2002 11:52:15 AM PDT by Millionaire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 601-603 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson