Fox News says Supreme Court Allows Lautenberg!

[Howlin]

It's done!

[steveegg]

Great idea.

[LS]

You know, you can take this attitude, but the fact is the court upheld the constitution (as bad as this particular outcome was for us) in that this is a STATE decision. This is what you get when you have a RAT-run state, with a RAT governor, and RINO judges. There was no Constitutional issue here: they had 14 military ballots sent out; only three had come in, and I think you'll agree that that is hardly an "insurmoutable barrier."

The lesson here is not even that you can cheat and win. The lesson is that if you don't elect CONSERVATIVES, don't expect favorable outcomes when the chips are down. While I doubt there are very many, at least there are probably a few NJ Republicans who now regret the way they treated Schundler and probably wish they had worked harder for his election.

Moreover, if Forrester loses, it will be because he did what we have ALWAYS accused the Dems of doing, running a totally negative "I'm-not-Toricelli" race. Yes, he should have done that. But you can't play defense. You must give people a reason to vote FOR you, and we'll see if he can do that now.

[mewzilla]

Heck, I live is Upstste NY and I know where Forrester stands on a lot of issues. What's NJ's problem?

[LS]

I understand your view, but the rule of law most certainly DOES exist, and the New Jersey legislature doesn't want to enforce it. The legislature could have immediately convened, CLARIFIED exactly what was meant, and ended all input by the NJ Sopranos. If you recall, it was precisely this threat that caused FLA to be taken as a case by the Supremes---that the FL legislature was going to name its pro-Bush delegates OVER the NJ Supreme Court.

[mewzilla]

...in Upstate...

[Iron Eagle]

I agree that Article II, Section 1 was implicated in Bush v. Gore, but that is not the argument of which I speak. And, that is not the concurrence of which I speak.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Spank Your Child ... Lose Your Guns!-- Cosponsor H.R. 1009, the FULL Lautenberg repeal bill

[Senator_Blutarski]

Well, I guess the rat is now the candidate SELECT.

Way to go NJSC, you have single handedly disenfranchised millions of rats who voted for the torch to be their candidate.

The liberal elite can't allow the people to pick their candidates. It is much better that the leaders of the Democrat Party pick candidates for the little people. The little people just need to do what the Democrat leaders tell them to do.

[Congressman Billybob]

The Constitution does not limit the subjects on which the Vice President casts the deciding vote, if the vote of the Senators results in a tie. That includes the election of leadership for the Senate and the establishment of the Senate's organizational rules.

The way that leaders are elected and rules established in both Houses of Congress, goes like this: The first order of buiness for both Houses in the new Congress in January, and every two years as long as we have a Congress, is choice of leaders and writing of Rules.

First, the Parties caucus separately, and make their own choices. However fractious the inter-Party fighting may be in those caucuses, all members of both Parties are expected to follow the "unit rule" on the floor. That means ALL agree to support the choice of their Caucus. The result is, the Party with the most members chooses the leadership and writes the Rules.

Since the Senate has an even number of members (unlike the House), it can result in a tie vote. Though the Vice President is NOT a member of the Caucus of his Party, he DOES vote on the floor if there is a tie. So, if the Senate is divided 50-50 in January (counting Benedict Jeffords as a Democrat), Cheney will cast the deciding vote.

Read the biography of John Adams. He cast perhaps the maximum number of tie-breaking votes in history as Vice President under George Washington.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban

[steveegg]

It is NOT a states' rights issue, as the Jersey Supreme Idiots were specifically shut out by both the Constitution and those authorities recognized by the Constitution as having this role in Senate elections. The Constitution specifically mentions the state legislature and Congress has having authority to set the rules. As neither the NJ legislature nor Congress gave a role to the NJ Supreme Idiots regarding ballot vacancies prior to their vacation of said rules, it fell on SCOTUS to restore what had been.

The fact that they failed to do so does not make it a "right" decision.

[steveegg]

Yep. The trick is to get to 50 and then have somebody other than Trent Cave-A-Lott as the Pubbie "leader".

[Congressman Billybob]

Scott, you are absolutely right that no system, even the Constitution as written and if obeyed, can save us from disaster if more and more corrupt "leaders" are elected under that system. That point is at the heart of my seventh book.

Please take a moment to click the last link, below. I think you'll find your own reasoning, in spades.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, and how Democratic is it to replace your guy simply because he's behind in the polls? Yikes! Any party can now replace their candidate if he isn't doing well. LOL This really is emerging anarchy.

[Robert_Paulson2]

"Every election now, will be settled not by the voters, but by some judge or another."

Highly doubtful. And no, while we are on it, the sky is not falling either.

I gotta ask: What did you expect from a democrat state? A liberal court and a democrat governor?

Isn't their general disdain for the rule of law, pretty much what separates US from THEM anyway... RATS eat cheese, not because they choose to but because it is the inner law of their nature. Democrats fudge the law because that is their internal belief system.

We can win this... our way. That is the nature of true conservatism... founding father's type of courage... not the sissyfied, pantywaisted hand-wringing "woe is us" stuff of late.

I cannot imagine my forebears at Concorde, getting all wilty at a court order to surrender their arms by some torie judicial pukemaster. It's time to press on and fix the "bayonets" for close in wet work, politically speaking... not this whiney... "WE WAS ROBBED" mentality.

Do you wanna lose this election? KEEP THE WHINING UP!

So What!?!? It was a bad call, but hardly the downfall of the republic. CONSERVATIVES, stop panicking. Vote harder. Support with our DOLLARS the candidates of choice and expect right to prevail at the ballot box where WE DEFINITELY have the FINAL say, instead of bemoaning the liberal justice system, where you cannot vote at all. We win the day in Jersey in November... and we will go a long way towards altering the liberal judicial branch for good.

It is possible and likely we will win... and not just in New Jersey either.

This defeatism will pass. And when Forrester wins anyway... which he surely can, it will be quite a slap to the NJSC... better than the supreme court could ever do...

Making McGreevey sweat is fun. Make them work hard to cheat even more... they might even get busted in the chops in a manner not foreseen at this time...

Doors swing both ways... especially the doors to "pandora's box" events.
rofl

[KsSunflower]

It is especially damning for the third parties. If they had this same scenario, they would have been out of luck because they can't afford to pay for the reprinting of ballots, etc.

This decision has, in effect, allowed the dems to buy a second chance to win the election by paying the fees to replace the original candidate with a potentionally more successful one.

[DoughtyOne]

...or a Democrataholic, a compulsive obsessive Democrat... and on and on.

[anymouse]

"NJSC to NJ Votors - Election Laws, Fuhgettaboutit!"

"SCOTUS to American Voters - We didn't see nuthin', no how."

[steveegg]

I hope you're right. It would have been nice to have the other side forced to play by "the rules", but ultimately, we still have to win.

Regarding Forrester, about the only way I can see him sitting in the Senate on January 3 is if (a) he wins, (b) the Pubbies get a majority in the Senate AND (c) Trent Cave-A-Lott grows a backbone and resists the coming call from the DemonRATs to not seat him.

[GrinFranklin]

This is gonna work out just fine. When any one of the other suits...messing with the military votes...messing with the already mailed absentee votes...etc...gets ruled upon in one of the federal courts and reverses the whole situation....

It's gonna be hilarious. The DEMOCRATS will then have an absolute Daschle-style meltdown and scream and holler about the Supreme Court intervening to allow Lautenberg to stay on the ballot. But the Supreme Court has already said they don't choose to consider it. This is gonna be an absolute riot.

And I suspect that we'll find out that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General both told the court that there was no immediate problem they must rule on. Democrats just wanted to make their sore loser mantra about the Supreme Court a campaign issue. This takes it away from them...and the Democrats still have advertised to the entire country that the national Democratic Party condones changing the rules at the last minute.

This will get better and better...just be patient.