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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 601-603 next last
To: billbears
This is different than Bush v Gore because that was a federal election affecting citizens of all states, not just Florida.

Um, the actions of federal senators do affect citizens of all states. In only the Lautenburg amendment to the Brady law only affected NJ!!

381 posted on 10/07/2002 1:03:00 PM PDT by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

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

Four of the NJ judges were appointed by a republican RINO.

382 posted on 10/07/2002 1:04:13 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: rintense
And so, the slide down the slippery slope begins.

In a sense, we're already along way down that slope. That's what happens when, year after year, scoundrels are elected to office. And they, then, appoint other scoundrels.

There is no system, no Constitution, no tradition that can "save" people from selecting bad leaders. Regardless of how beautifully constructed our Constitution and system are (were), if the people elect criminals as leaders, and if they do it long enough and widely enough, there is nothing that can stop that system from degrading -- not even a Supreme Court.

The only answer is to elect honest, upright people who do not believe in winning at every cost. If that cannot be done, then there is nothing that will save the system.

The Democrats are willing to destroy the system for power. If the people elect them, then they will have the power to do just that. And there's nothing on earth that will stop it.

Unlike what the Buchananites and the Libertarians think, if you lose elections there is no victory "down the road", there is no moral victory. There is only the end of the system.

To preserve the country that we have known, the only answer is to win the elections.

383 posted on 10/07/2002 1:05:22 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Glad I don't live in Jersey! If I were those voters, I'd raise a big stink. Socialists are getting their way! Sad day for the Republic. This is going to screw things up unless the election laws are very well defined and enforced in the future...
384 posted on 10/07/2002 1:05:24 PM PDT by cthusker77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
Can't believe the major networks are not going to air his speech tonight.

Bastards.

385 posted on 10/07/2002 1:06:32 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I don't know if you heard Forrester on Studio B on Fox today. He made a joke....that he was actually hoping to NOT be ahead in any polls until right before the election for fear that the Democrats would attempt to replace Lautenberg with yet another candidate.

Showed class, imo.
386 posted on 10/07/2002 1:07:13 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
She was disgusted by Forrester actively snarking pork. I told her that it's nothing new--most congresscritters (D & R) brag about it to their constituents.

I doubt if she'll stay away from the R's on election day. I don't think she'll want to do anything to help elect a Dem to the Senate.

387 posted on 10/07/2002 1:08:16 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
what was that bloodless transistion of power, circa 1860 thing called... oh yeah... the civil war... not even two centuries... yet. try using the word DECADES, until we get at least two centuries under our belt...

It was the War Between the States - it did not qualify as a "civil war" as it was not about who would be in power but about secession.

I was talking about our elections and how we have had almost totally peaceful transitions of power.

388 posted on 10/07/2002 1:08:41 PM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Wellson
I know what you mean. I don't post much because I too see shades of gray. It would be nice if the world were a simple place and only one side acted inappropriately. In reality it is a place where one side is better than the other but neither is all good or all bad. Even in this election cycle there is a Republican candidate for congress who logically should have known the law but failed to comply with it anyway. She is still in the race because the work to preserve the right to vote, even when there has been a violation of the statute.

In this thread there have been examples of candidates dropping out of races under similar circumstances and that fact having no lasting impact. This won't happen often because it will be unusual for the losing candidate to drop out and it is even more unusual for the loser's party to have a better candidate in waiting. It has no lasting meaning.
389 posted on 10/07/2002 1:08:44 PM PDT by Theyknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
What irks me about this is the brazen attitude the Dems had about all of this. They had the deck stacked, and all the pounding of the Court over Bush v. Gore worked. They scared at least one and probably TWO justices from stepping to the plate again.

The dimo party has been taken over by leftist activist attornies. This is how they play the game. The 'pubs are just going to have to adjust.

390 posted on 10/07/2002 1:08:50 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: OrioleFan
"Forester has other problems along with Lautenberg. There are three independents on the ballot as well. And we know that the independents are there only to siphon the fence sitter votes from Forester (worked for Clinton)."

No, the others on the ballot are Conservative Party, Independent Party ( tends to siphons more Dems than Republicans ) , Socialist Party ( Dem siphon ) and GREEN PARTY ( can we spell R-A-L-P-H N-A-D-E-R !!! )...in fact, Nader was here over the weekend - got almost no press - but he's screaming & yelling about what the Dems did. Green Party is a big time Dem vote siphon!....and I think after what's transpired, it may be even bigger....not many conservatives in that group!

391 posted on 10/07/2002 1:09:50 PM PDT by bioprof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: chimera
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.

I agree. "The Law" hasn't mattered in a long time, and this just proves it!

392 posted on 10/07/2002 1:11:11 PM PDT by pray4liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: justshe
I don't know if you heard Forrester on Studio B on Fox today. He made a joke....that he was actually hoping to NOT be ahead in any polls until right before the election for fear that the Democrats would attempt to replace Lautenberg with yet another candidate.

This is the right approach... remind people of this whole stunt in a classy way. The only other good thing is that at least Forrester has an opponent... it is very dangerous for him politically to be out there not knowing if he will have an opponent or not.

393 posted on 10/07/2002 1:11:33 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Yeah, I would have been shocked if SCOTUS had taken this. Most people don't seem to understand that there are many cases where there clearly is federal question jurisdiction, where the lower court made an incorrect decision, and where SCOTUS still doesn't take the case. For all the bellyaching, the voters of NJ still get to go to the polls and vote for a candidate. Sure, it was a crappy, politically-motivated decision. But I didn't think that it encompassed such a key issue that SCOTUS would accept it for review.

But, the lumpheaded Republicans in NJ appealed it any way. So now, you've given the Dems the ability to claim that what the NJSCT did was okay, and that the Republican whining was unjustified. A terrible political move by Forrester's campaign.

394 posted on 10/07/2002 1:11:38 PM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast; Miss Marple; Jim Robinson; PhiKapMom
You've hit the nail on the head there.

Clearly, we have no more leeway to hold out for "perfect" candidates. We have to insist that the folks we have in office are honest, honorable, and have integrity, even if they disgaree with us on some issues.

Would I do some things differently than the way Bush has done them? Probably? But I'm going to vote for him come November, 2004. Why? Because the altrernative is worse. If the Dems start to gain power again, we will see more of the same still that we saw from the Clintons - only worse and more heavy-handed.

The Republicans are the only shot we have.
395 posted on 10/07/2002 1:11:53 PM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: steveegg; Sabertooth
"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).

I can see your argument. That said:

1. Under your argument does the vacation of election law trump the right of a state to determine what candidates it will field on the ballot?

2. Does the Constitution speak to the election itself, or also to the means by which candidates will be selected?

3. What effect did the 17th Amendment have on this passage? Did it modify it in any way?

All open-ended questions - you've persuaded me, to a point. FWIW, I've been concerned from the start that if the GOP successfully barred Lautenberg from the ballot there'd be a big backlash against the party. I don't think the popular view is for the "rule of law", so in a political sense this may not hurt the GOP as much as some may think.
396 posted on 10/07/2002 1:12:10 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: billbears; steveegg
"Was the decision made by the NJ SC correct? No, it was not. However this is an issue for the state courts." Agreed.

The distinction between Floriduh and N.J. is key. In Floriduh, the FLSC issued a rule resulting in identical ballots for President cast in different Floriduh counties would be counted in different ways. That violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law.

In contrast, the NJSC was at least ostensibly interpreting the statute enacted by the legislature to include an implied, equitable exception to the change of candidate deadline. That is a state issue for state resolution.

The decision was wrong. The remedy is for the New Jersey legislature to impeach the Court or to pass a law clarifying the statute.

The U.S. Supreme Court cannot constitutionally act as a national court correcting the bad decisions of the state courts on matters of state law, and believe me there are a LOT of those bad decisions. It is up to the citizens to reign in trial lawyers and judges who think that instead of interpreters of the law they are lawmakers.

It would be just as wrong to set up a dictatorial Supreme Court to clean up the mess in the state courts as it would be to set up a dictatorial President to do the same.

397 posted on 10/07/2002 1:13:02 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: twyn1
Yes, I have read/heard that the latest SC appointment (just sworn in this summer I think) is a Dem, while his predecessor was a Republican.
398 posted on 10/07/2002 1:13:46 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Yes, you make a compelling case that too many conservatives make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Still a sickening decision from NJSC and an entirely predictable pass from USSC.

399 posted on 10/07/2002 1:14:33 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Unfortunately, no. It is not true that "Souter screwed us again." The ENTIRE COURT screwed us. This was not a mere refusal to grant emergency relief. This was a refusal to take the case whatsoever.

Since the Court uses the "Rule of Four," it takes only four Justices to cause the Court to take a case. That means that at least SIX Justices on the Supreme Court refused to obey their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Words fail in describing how reprehensible, how stupid, how destructive (both now and in the future) this decision not to decide is. I assume that the faithful three, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and Thomas, did not go along with this rape of the Constitution. But we will only know that for sure if they dissent from the Order denying certiorari. Justices seldom do that, but may do so if they choose.

At least my predictions were right about the timing of the decision -- just a while after 1 p.m. (#$%%^&&#*(&*^&)

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

400 posted on 10/07/2002 1:17:29 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 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