Fox News says Supreme Court Allows Lautenberg!

[Howlin]

It's done!

[chuckyd]

Forget SCOTUS. Forrester has to go out and hammer Lautenberg. Remember, Torricelli's integrity problems are what did him in. But with Lautenberg allowing his name to be put on the ballot he now opens himself to the same problem. The NJ Supreme Court clearly went beyond its authority--the law is clear. So if Lautenberg wants to play Forrester must make him deal with the integrity issue before moving on to something else. I was listening to Lautenberg's acceptance speech lastweek. For him the issues are environment, gun laws and the economy. The economy is a bogus issue in the first place, but Bush was right to force a "back to work" order on the West Coast docks. With Iraq war coming soon any patter from the Dems about his interfering with will be lost in the noise of battle. Anyway, beside the economy issue Lautenberg sounded more like a product of the late 70s or early 80s. Furthermore, I'm not sure he'll have the stomach for a really dirty campaign. He is not being received well by commuters when he shows up in all the usual places on Mon-Fri mornings. By the way, is there a Freeper or Freepers in NJ who is organizing some harassment for Mr. Lautenberg? I would be happy to sign up. Chuckd

[Sabertooth]

A benefit of this is that the Rats are stifled about the Supreme Court and how it shouldn't be listened to.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Democrats are not bound by such constraints as logical consistency.

[chimera]

In my opinion, we need to quit griping. Am I disappointed? Sure.

However, we accepted the decision of the Supreme Court for the Presidential election, so we should accept this one, and get on with winning the election.

A benefit of this is that the Rats are stifled about the Supreme Court and how it shouldn't be listened to.

Now, I think Forester needs to be gracious and say "that's the way it goes" and start hitting Lautenberg on his very poor stance on terrorism, national defense, and assorted other issues.

While I'll give you credit for determination and a never-say-die fighting spirit, what I think I and others on the thread are concerned about goes beyond this particular election. And that is, for any kind of system of self-governance to work, there have to be rules that are clear to all and followed by all. My concern in this case is that it has set a precedent for saying the rules don't really matter, and they can be altered at will as long as you have a majority of votes in a particular judicial body. IOW, a version of might makes right. If that is the case, all the honest effort and fighting spirit in the world isn't going to make a difference, because its not so much what the rules say, as those who have the power make the rules what they want them to be. The Florida case was different. There, the USSC seemed to be saying, follow your own rules. Here, the court seems to be saying, don't worry about them, let your own state SC decide whether or not they mean anything. Well, either laws mean something or they don't. If they don't, why bother passing them in the first place? Just rule by fiat. If they do matter, and don't conflict with underlying laws and established principles that take precedence, then one should stick by them.

[perez24]

I think it's a shame and reprehensible. On the other hand, Forrester still has to win the election...regardless of the opponent.

[Tribune7]

The court would have to rule that judges don't have the power to write law in order to overturn the decision. I guess they didn't have it in them to do that.

[rintense]

And so, the slide down the slippery slope begins.

[Sabertooth]

I agree Congress should be in charge of the election, however there is no mention of how the candidates are chosen. Therefore, a state issue

The NJ Supreme Court decision affected the ballot that would appear on election day, making it subject to Federal regulation.

Further, the decision was that of the NJ Court and not the State Legislature, which is also in violation of Article 1, Section 4.

[steveegg]

"Manner" includes the primaries, as well as any laws written in order to facilitate the entire election process. The fact that, outside of the date of the general election, Congress has not used its "oversight" role speaks well of Congress.

When the Jersey Supreme Idiots based their vacation of Jersey election law not on the law, nor on any authority granted it by the US Constitution, Congress or the NJ legislature to rule on election law with regard to Senate elections, that vacation became unconstitutional (regardless of SCOTUS' lack of review).

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

If this is ok - I hope the GOP also uses this tactic.<.I>

If one gives in to the illegal tactics used by your opponent, you are no different than them. No, the GOP has to do a better job of promoting consercative ideas and candidates, and a MUCH better job of encouraging GOP turnout. Better to be in a position of pointing out the depravity of the left than ecnouraging it.

[putupon]

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

99.9% of politicians are lawyers who have spent years corrupting the system to their advantage. Thats why we have all these goofy laws anyhow, just to generate work for the dirtballs.

[Coleus]

Yes, let's freep the corpse...

If you find the link to the graphics, please freep me, thanks.....

Let's get those rats.

[steveegg]

Time to break out the since table...

Wellson

Disrupting FR since October 7, 2002

[weegee]

I "wonder" if they would permit the ballots to be changed if the Green Party candidate (or Reform Party candidate, etc.) were to pull out of the race or does this only hold for the "big 2"?

[billbears]

Well, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices didn't apparently see it that way did they? This includes Thomas and Scalia. This is different than Bush v Gore because that was a federal election affecting citizens of all states, not just Florida. In this case, theoretically as the Constitution would have it, the only citizens affected were those of the state of New Jersey

Your arguments have taken every power out of the hands of the states why not one more? When will it be enough? Was the decision made by the NJ SC correct? No, it was not. However this is an issue for the state courts. In the long run, this decision works towards the rights of the states and how they run their internal affairs, something I thought conservatives still cared about

[justshe]

Has anyone in the Legislature spoken out about this issue? Or can I safely assume NJ Legislature is a Dem controled body? And thus will remain silent?

[Coleus]

It's a shame that 3 of them are republicans.

[RobRoy]

Maybe, but some of what is said is in fact true, I hate to admit it. The problem is that both parties are made up of people. And the behavior of people is actually quite predictable.

[weegee]

They celebrated Clinton's impeachment (I'd celebrate it too but they embraced the guy during their "celebration"). Rats celebrate some rather odd things.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Overturning New Jersey SC would give the dems an issue that could get traction nationally. Leaving it as is... that's great for Forrester. Everyone understands fairness. If this guy is smart he'll run on the "I'm getting cheated" campaign. He should walk away with it easily at this point.,

ow the 'pubs should nationalize this issue to gin up the base in other races. As far as Forrester is concerned, he should do his best to make his case based on what he would do for NJ and he should attack Lautenberg on the issues. He should raise the fairness issue, but only in a way to point out that he has risen above the unfair circumstances dealt him by the dims (aka the party of evil).

[Coleus]

Sen. Torricelli with the Mafi and the CIA:

Mafia

CIA

"I'm goin' places, Tom, and I'm takin' you with me!