Fox News says Supreme Court Allows Lautenberg!

[Howlin]

It's done!

[Theodore R.]

"please try not to put negative things on the main board about our guys"

OldFriend, this is a recipe for a Republican disaster in the making. When we can't point out shortcoming of the GOP to fellow Republicans, we know we are in trouble. I was the first on the board to warn that Ron Kirk had a real chance to win the Senate seat in TX. People ridiculed what I feared. I still fear that voter perception of economic decline will sweep the Democrats to overwhelming victory on Nov. 5, including Senate races in AR, TX, and CO and perhaps NH ond OR. I don't see any Republican pickups of Senate seats, not SD, not MO, not MN, and certainly not NJ. I see Republican gubernatorial losses in PA, MI, IL, WI, and possibly TN and FL. I just don't see the sunny prospects for Republicans that so many on the board seem to think is likely. I see a potential repeat of 1982 -- 20 years later.

[HamiltonJay]

KS,

I don't know if I fully disagree with the court refusing to hear the case, after all this is something that should be decided by the states. However, the legislature of NJ should absolutely be livid, and should be recalling these lunatics... and push the issue, their legitimacy as a body is gone, not because the activists on the NJSC, but because they don't call them on it.

Of course this is NJ we are talking about.. I used to joke that Rhode Island was a state because the Mob needed a state to call their own. It is now obvious the Mob poluation is now too big for RI and they have relocated to NJ.

I see nothing but electorial chaos at all times now, nearly every election will wind up in front of judges, and that is dispicable. Nixon was a greater man that Gore! He could have challenged the 1960 presidential election on the corruption in Chicago, and would have won, but did not because he knew the pandora's box it would open. THe dems didn't care in 2000 when they played their games, and now have created a morass that will drag this nation down a terrible road for years to come.

[LS]

You may look at it from a "common sense" perspective, that that doesn't match reality, certainly not in the past.

Prior to 1850 (a "golden age" by many conservatives' assessment) it was ROUTINE to provide hard liquor and cash at OPEN polling places, with the sheriff and mayor voting first and announcing their votes so everyone would get the hint.

It didn't matter who the candidates were in Boss Tweed's New York: you simply voted for whom the "machine" told you to. It is only VERY recently (last 50 years) that elections were not blatantly stolen, on both sides.

Of course this is not good, but to pretend that it hurt the Republic is to argue that many of our greatest decades somehow were damaged by these shenanigans. I don't think so.

In New Jersey, it was not an issue of constitutionality, because there was/is no denial of the right to vote. It's slimy, but not unconstitutional. (Alan Dershowitz's moves usually fit this description, too!)

Here is the thing that we conservatives must GET: you cannot constantly depend on any court, let alone the Supreme Court of the U.S., to level the playing field. That is done by flat-out whipping your opponent. Let's face it, the ONLY reason that Florida mattered in 2000 was that Bush did not do nearly as well as most of us hoped in the electoral college. Had he won PA, MI, WI, NM, and OR as he should have, the question would have been moot. It's like a college basketball game coming down to the last seconds on an opponent's home court---you are NOT going to get the charging foul, so don't bother.

The same is true with NJ. Did we get screwed? Yes. Will people ultimately lose their right to vote, including military people? No. There are only three returned ballots. You simply cannot make a case for the constitutionality here.

All conservatives better get it: the DEMS CHEAT, so get used to it. We need to beat them by enough of a margin that their cheating will not matter, THEN, make sure the people we have in office appoint the right judges (unlike Whitman).

I fully agree with your sentiments on what the Founders SAID they wanted (but certainly Jefferson and Hamilton practiced VERY dirty politics). But it's time to, as the song says, "get over it."

[mwl1]

I do not share your pessimism. The 1982 economy was much worse than today, and we lost House seats but gained a Senate seat. That was coming off a huge GOP landslide in 1980. Bush did not have any coattails in 2000... we are at our minimum strength and the reapportionment and redistricting will help us.

I agree that a number of the Senate seats could be nail-biters and a lot will depend on how the economy and markets perform over the next 30 days. We could just as easily lose 5 seats as to gain 3 seats or break even. It's that close.

[inquest]

"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

Counties often determine the places and manners of holding such elections. Does that violate the Constitution?

[frnewsjunkie]

At best, I figure we have 6 more years .... IF we can even stay status quo in the coming election in congress. Even if we would happen to win the Senate and keep the Congress... it's still a matter of 6 more years before a socialist is President. I don't even want to think about what it would look like if the socialist controlled congress AND the Presidency.

There are just too many of "them" in government, and the rest are either out numbered or too weak to speak out with any positive consequences.

It seems to be better to "get along" than to fight against the socialist agenda. Socialism ... when good men do nothing (or not enough) .... evil reigns.

Who would the Republicans run against hill? Anyone out there who would have the charisma to win? Seems that's what it takes with the populus to win the Presidency these days ... just some "charisma". And a pack of lies to go with it.

Sad!

[stndngathwrthistry]

Counties often determine the places and manners of holding such elections. Does that violate the Constitution?

Not if the power to do so is delegated to counties by the legislature.

[inquest]

I think you're probably the most competent to answer my question at #585. Just playin' devil's advocate, don't y'know.

[inquest]

That's a reasonable point. In fact, it's beginning to make more sense as I read it. (Didn't mean to slight you, by the way, by pinging the Congressman in #588. We both posted at the same time)

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Your comments would be welcome there even now.

Thanks for the invitation, but all threads dated 9/4/01 or before have been locked so that one can't comment.

[Bigun]

...all threads dated 9/4/01 or before have been locked so that one can't comment.

I wasn't aware of that!

Thanks for the info!

[Theodore R.]

Perhaps the 1982 economy was worse than in 2002. However, it is the voter PERCEPTION of the economy that matters. And Tom Brokaw and others keep talking about the "faltering" economy. That alone will hold SD not just for Senator Johnson, but the Demos there are likely to take John Thune's House seat and gain the governorship as well. I see a major GOP debacle in the works, for jittery workers will be persuaded to vote Democrat on the false premise of "protecting" their jobs.

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes, I DO have a reply to the thread about lawyers taking over the Hew Ess of Hay. The reply is in the third link below.

In addition, I have put in a proposal for a major research project comparing the costs of civil and criminal litigation in the US, Britain, Canada and Australia. I already know it's a far lower percentage of the GNP in those other countries than here, with some clear ideas of why.

The proposed title and subtitle of that research study -- if it is funded and goes ahead -- is: "Sand in the Gears: Comparisons of the Economic Costs of Litigation"

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[Congressman Billybob]

Counties have no independent authority from the states they are in. Only to the extent that state legislatures delegate powers to counties -- or even create counties in the first place -- are they permitted to act in any governmental ways.

So when counties designate their own polling places, or buy their own voting machines, etc., they are exercising part of the power that the US Constitution gives to the state legislature, and it then delegates, if it chooses to do that. (Some counties have home rule; some do not. It's up to the states.)

Congressman Billybob

[mwl1]

I share your concern, but remember that we will vastly outspend the RATS in all races -- Senate, House and governorships -- in the last 3 weeks. We will essentially own the airwaves.

The problem areas for us are (1) the news media, which will do all it can to engender a Democratic victory (2) organized labor and (3) the stock market and people's perceptions on the economy... but with the huge hit the market has taken of late, it is difficult not to assume some type of rally later in the month (in other words, it cannot get worse).

[Bigun]

The reply is in the third link below.

LOL! OK! I have it on order already!

[capitan_refugio]

Good points. I think my arguments were more in regard to a "world view." Prior to the Spanish-American War and the entry of the America into the age of global civilization (although some would say the US emerged on to the world stage in the 1860's), the perversions of the American democracy were of little import. However, the death of the age of colonialism, beginning in the late 1800's and continuing until the 1960's, the American model became more important. Consequently, the integrity of the electoral system drew greater scrutiny. Of course you could count on crooked elections in Louisiana and rigged voting machines in New York City, but the were the exception rather than the rule.

In Mexico, under basically 1-party rule for seven decades, the party bosses secretly chose the Presidential candidate, who was then "elected" (whether or not he got the most popular votes). In places like Zimbabwe, if the President (for life) didn't like the way the election was going, he just cancelled it or liberally stuffed the ballot box. But in the United States, even in close elections, one could count on the rule of law to guide the process.

During November and December 2000, the Democrats and their stooges in the Florida Supreme Court attempted a bloodless coup d'etat. Luckily, the rule of law prevailed. Unfortunately, there was no retribution. This year, the Democrats, on a smaller stage, are trying again. If it works, they will repeat it in two years. If the US Supreme Court is unwilling to enforce the rule of law, the people have the obligation to do so. Hopefully, they will do so peacefully at the ballot box.

[Coleus]

Yep, that's a good one, the problem is he doesn't have a web site and I don't know any democrats involved with the campaign, so it's going to be hard to track him down at various rallies. I did e mail the state democratic party to be included on their e mail list, maybe their notices may say something about it.

[fire and forget]

Sorry for the delayed reply. Yeah, that may be true. Eventually Republicans, and maybe other parties (with all -- now legal-- justification), would start playing the same game, and the obviousness to the public of this madness would require the courts to intervene and shut it all down. As should have happened in NJ.

The SCOTUS clearly didn't want to intervene in state election matters a second time in as many years (at least that must have been the conservatives' reasoning, who actually care about state Constitutional rights outside of partisan considerations), whether or not the Constitution afforded them that the right to intervene which I believe it did.

We've got to hold and keep the Senate to turn things around in this country.

[Coleus]

Just a little correction.

In NJ there is an unwritten law (a tradition) where the sitting governor MUST keep a balance of the 7 Justices, with the majority being from the party of the sitting governor. Meaning with Gov. McSleazy in Control, 4 justices would be democrats, 3 Republicans.


RINO Whitless put on 2 RINO's ( Chief Justice Proitz and the other I forget) and one Republican ( Peter Veniero). Veniero will probably not get tenure after 7 yrs. since he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the racial profiling actions when he was attorney general.