Fox News says Supreme Court Allows Lautenberg!

[Howlin]

It's done!

[HamiltonJay]

Its not whining, you are missing completely the point. But that's ok I am used to that here. The point is the rule of law in elections in particular is now meaningless... our Republic is indeed in a bad place.

its not a matter of the Republicans getting the decision their way next time, who's sitting on the bench should not be deciding elections, and that is clearly the path we are on... representative republic is nearing its end. Do not confuse observations with whining.

I am not whining that the Dems subverted the law, I am observing the rule of law is now null and void especially in the matter of elections. That is a horrible thing, and is larger than any one party.

[My2Cents]

Well, perhaps if Forrester pulls ahead of Lautenberg in another week or two, the Democrats in NJ can get him to pull out in favor of someone else. The possibilities are endless.

[mwl1]

I agree with a number of your comments. First, about the whining. I have friends with small children who, like most children, are prone to occasionally shout, "That's not fair!"

Their parents reply, "Don't be a Democrat."

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...

This part of your post I do not understand.

[agunther]

Re: Post 475
I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Congressman Billybob]

The error in your syllogism is in point #1. The Constitution does not give the authority over election laws (for federal candidates) to the "states." It gives that power to the "legislatures of the states." The Framers were not sloppy with their language. When they meant "states" they used that word. When they meant "legislatures" they used that word.

Consider the ratiification of constitutional amendments. That, too, is given to the "legislatures of the states." That means neither the Governors nor the courts of the states have any role in that process. The same phrase, with the same meaning, is used concerning election laws.

The Constitution is quite clear on this. The Supreme Court acted dishonestly in not taking the case.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[mwl1]

I wish I could share your optimism. With the USSC decision today, I highly doubt that the lower federal courts will find a problem with the absentee/military ballots.

[steveegg]

The trouble with patience is that the "reality on the ground" of Lautenberg as the DemonRAT candidate is happening. It is VERY hard to overturn the "reality on the ground", especially one that you earlier assented to.

[mwl1]

I agree with you that I want McGreedy to take a major hit on this... just desserts if Forrester wins.

McGreedy scares me, he has incredible ambition and is obviously presidential timber down the road.

[KsSunflower]

I absolutely agree with you. There is a bigger picture than just this election. The problem with the SCOTUS not taking the case is, that we no longer have the threat of recourse. For this state, NJ, it appears that we may have been better off not even making the appeal. At least before, we had the perception of the moral high ground.

That has been lost in this case and in the future, any state with an activist court is now fair game for all kinds of election and voting statute mayhem.

[colorado tanker]

No argument from me. The NJSC screwed up.

[mwl1]

Here is more "good news": MSNBC reporting that the federal district judge in Trenton threw out the challenge regarding absentee ballots, and remanded the issue to the NJSC.

Legally, this one is over, friends.

[Congressman Billybob]

Your funny comment about Lautenberg being "a zombie" suggested a FReeping opportunity. One FReeper should buy a honking amount of gauze from a drug store plus a couple bottles of iodine. Then he should wrap his hands and face with the gauze, dab on the iodine to he looks like a mummy.

Then he should attend the FReep with a sign around his neck that says:

It Came from Beyond Retirement

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[mwl1]

District court threw out challenge to military ballots.

[Bush2000]

Focus on beating Lautenberg at the polls!

[mwl1]

Dovetails nicely with Halloween.

[OrioleFan]

Well maybe things are better that I thought. I just saw a website that said Rep, Dem, and 3 Ind. I am encouraged. Now, if only NJ voters will do what is right. I bet those polls showing Lautenberg with a lead over Forester are doctored in an attempt to influence the vote, much like Clinton used bogus polls to influence public opinion (in contrast to taking a poll to see what public opinion was).

[mwl1]

This issue was thrown out today by the federal district court in Trenton.

[nutmeg]

Yup. I'm disgusted, disappointed, frustrated, etc. Did you see the "Torch Lautenberg / Vote Forrester" graphic on a thread last week? I have never posted political stickers on/in my car, but I have just crossed that threshold. There is also the "Bait and Switch" and the Supremos graphics.

I hope we organize at least one FReep of Lautenberg before the election.

I'm with you... I'm actually speechless at the US Supreme Court's decision. What kind of precedent will this leave for future elections? *Geesh*

Please keep me posted if you discover those anti-Lautenberg bumper stickers and/or graphics. We may have CT plates, but often drive in the NYC/NJ area. We'll do our best to join you in any FReeps of Lautenberg. It would be an honor to FReep the NJ DemocRAT gangsters!

Grrr... Sean Hannity on the radio now, talking to a DemocRAT woman who is calling Republicans "whiners" and "sore losers". Incredible.

[Congressman Billybob]

Primary elections are all part of the election process. They cannot be separately considered from the general elections. The US SC settled this issue about 50 years ago when it ruled against the all-white, private "Jay Bird Party." This group ran the primaries which then produced the Democrat nominees in Texas.

The Court held, correctly I believe, that racial discrimination in this "private" primary was within reach of the Constitution because it produced the candidates who ran in the state-run general election.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[Spiff]

We HAVE had peaceful transtions of power since the election and overthrow of jefferson davis and the south ... "without violence" but it has not been centuries. . . and our transition of power from England was not peaceful either. BUT, it has been BARELY two centuries... and if "at gunpoint" with hundreds of thousands of dead americans in Circa 1860 is not a civil war, and constitutes a "peaceful election and transition of power..." I will literally eat your hat. Funny all these books I have on the history of the "civil war" are wrong... and YOU are right. It wasn't a Civil War after all. Priceless.

Again, the War Between the States was not about a transition of power or a disputed election. It was about the North disagreeing that the South had the right to secede.

A "civil war" occurs when a revolt takes place and one faction attempts to - read closely - overthrow the government by means of force.

As for the original transition of power from England - we weren't a nation then. Obviously, I was talking about since our Constitutional model was forged - sheesh!

I do not disagree that many people died during the War Between the States. However, it has nothing to do with the point I made. You clearly misunderstood my point - which was that, unlike other countries, we haven't had massive violence and bloodshed during elections or the seating of new leaders (ie. transitions of power)

.