Posted on 10/07/2002 10:53:40 AM PDT by Howlin
It's done!
Dontcha think you might be laying it on a little thick pal? One battle does not an election make. Why not beat the old fart anyway? Wouldn't that be more fun, to beat the crap outta 'em even while they are caught and proven to be cheaters?
Is the only way we can win, by having the supremes spank the dems? If that is so, our candidate was a LOSER candidate to begin with. I think we sell forrester short by implying he cannot beat a 75 year old, incontinent and babbling fool. AND if NJ'rs actually want a "life support" senator, representing them... how apprapo!
We need to stick to the concept that OUR candidates, our ideas and our commitment are stronger and more effective than the non-subtle and plainly corrupt manipulations of a despairate and maniacle bunch of liberal idealogues.
We need to stop crying about a fake loss... in the judicial system, when we have an election TO WIN.
The highest law, is not the supreme court. It's the court of public opinion... and in this case the ballot box opinion will be the final say in this election.
Supreme court decisions don't rule this nation.
And if we win, despite the NJSC corrupt rulings, doesn't that make victory even sweeter?
If we win the election, it will be sweet revenge. If we lose, the senate seat wasn't really ours to begin with.
I get discouraged too, but this thing is FAR from over. Look at their POS candidate. They had to break him out of an elder care facility and prop him up with viagra to get him to speak... it SHOULD be a riot, to watch him drool and soak his depends, whilst forrester gives him a severe thumping, about the head and shoulders. roflmao.
tis not over, till the old fart, FARTS...
Actually ... he was something like their 3rd or 4th choice
No, I felt that we had to fight the Lautenberg switch on principal. And now we must point out his illegitimacy. But I also believe that victory in the courts would likely prove pyrrhic for whichever side won. If Lautenberg sounds as tired and out of it in the debates as he did when he first accepted the Dem "nomination" the other night, then Forrester will win in NJ. And if Republicans nationally point out that this is yet another example of sleazy extra-legal tactics by the Dems (Florida, running the dead in MO and HI, and now NJ), then we might have undivided Republican government for the first time in 50 years (we've had undivided Democratic government for maybe 20 of those years).
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." --US Constitution, Article I, Sec. 4
No, they wouldn't. As the NJ Legislature was operating under a Constitutional mandate when it wrote its election laws regarding the Senate, the fact that the Jersey Supreme Idiots set aside those laws without relying on any guidance from the Legislature means that they violated the Constitution.
This is (or at least should have been) fundamentally different than if the same had been tried in the governor's race. In that case, the Constitution is silent with regard to who makes the rules.
When my folks were still living and I would make my annual trek "down the shore", there occasionally seemed to be rumblings about the 51st state, South Jersey. Anything lately on that score? As I recall, the line was drawn east-west from about Manasquan to Bordentown, with maybe Camden chopped off and floated over to Philly.
That would be the predictable result if you looked at the long, sad history of the NJ Republican Party. But I hope (without reason, perhaps) that Forrester and the Pubbies will be PO'ed enough about this blatant theft of a Senate seat that they will be willing to muss up their hair and start making some noise.
Just hoping...
Let us suppose that Forrester beats Lautenberg on election day. Next day the RATS file suit in NJSC asserting that because of the switch, Lautenberg did not have adequate time to campaign.
Do you think that this kangaroo court would again not try to accommodate a "remedy" to this injustice? They would rule for Lautenberg and throw out the election results in a New York minute.
You almost have it right. You forgot the authority that also governs Congress, the Constitution.
...However, state courts have no right to interpret state laws?
With regard to the election of Congress and the Electoral College, state courts have only as much latitude as given to it by the state legislature, Congress and the Constitution.
If it makes you feel any better, I've racked up about $500 in "toll violations" on NJ and NY roads over the last ten months.
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.