NJ flushes the law

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Kieran

Don't tell me about who voted for it, that's a straw man and you know it. And you can be damn sure this DID set a precedent we'll all be sorry for. I repeat, we are now truly a banana republic.

LOL! We're now truly a banana republic?

[Kieran]

Yup.

If we can virtually overturn any election or election law on a whim, what do you think that makes us?

If we can't trust our election system, why have elections?

This is twice in a row for the Dems. They are making a practice of attempting to overthrow from the bench election laws that get in their way.

Close election? Recount! Recount doesn't go your way? Recount again, but this time only in certain counties that favor you. That recount not favor you? Recount again, this time attempting to divine intent from miscast votes- which, lo and behold, seem to want the Dem guy (though it's difficult to understand how that is determined for certain).

Popular senator get embroiled in scandal? Push ahead, the voters will forgive and forget! Oops, they're not forgiving or forgetting, let's replace him (after all, the senate control is too slim to risk it)... oops, the deadline is passed! Go to court, get the law changed! Claim the voters won't have a choice otherwise! (Of course the "candidate" could continue to run and take his chances, providing "choice", or the voters could vote third-party.) No, no, we must protect the voters!

It's a thinly-veiled attempt to once again overthrow election law. Tell me, what is the striking feature of a banana republic?

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Krusher
This might lead to a new tactic by both parties.

Bring in a canidate to bash the crap out of the other guy. Run ad after ad with misquotes, and lies......

 

What in the world does misquitoes have to do with anything?

[Tumor]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sabre


This ruling is just plain wrong, and is indefensible under the bright-glare of reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Krusher



Uhoh.... he used the common sense argument...

Unfortunatly Democrats and Liberals do not reason..... it's all about what feels good NOW damnit.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by midnight Target
This thread is really funny. Where did all you 'rule of law' Republicans go? Sucks when the courts rule against you doesn't it?
I wonder how many have tried to read the actual ruling?

Gonna suck even worse for you when the whole deal is done.  Courts don't write law, as much as the Dems would like that to be the case, it just aint so.

[Udie]

So what's the deal with the military votes?  Is it true that some already voted? Do they get to vote again?   I sure as hell hope so.  I'd hate to think that they are off fighting a war and the democrats stopped them from voting.  Though I'm 100% sure that is the LAST thing the democrats are worried about.  Most likely it's just a nice side effect of thier illegal activities.

 Once again the democrats make me want to vomit.  As far as I'm concerned the last 2 weeks have been  the nail in the democratic party coffin.  I can't see a time that I'd vote for any of the guys they have in Washington now.  I honestly don't think they care about the future of our country,  unless they are going to be the ones running it.  They'd rather see our nation fail than see it succeed under conservative rule.

 Hey but feel safe my liberal friends because from Bagdad to New Jersey the Democrats are looking out for your well being  But hey somebody has to stop those war mongering baby starving elderly killing republicans from feeding their parents dog food and pushing wheelchair burdened people off of cliffs after steeling all their SS money.  GAG  you guys actually believe that stuff huh?

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Udie
So what's the deal with the military votes?  
 Hey but feel safe my liberal friends because from Bagdad to New Jersey the Democrats are looking out for your well being  But hey somebody has to stop those war mongering baby starving elderly killing republicans from feeding their parents dog food and pushing wheelchair burdened people off of cliffs after steeling all their SS money.  GAG  you guys actually believe that stuff huh?

Removing the military vote is always a good thing for the Democrats.  Remember, we're (the military) nothing but a bunch of blood-sucking tax dodgers (tm Margaret Carlson) <<<  squeak  and mostly Republican! (Funny, maybe it has something to do with not whining and following rules).

[Erlkonig]

Again, if the Democratic Party and Torricelli were involved in some conspiracy to get a a better candidate on the ballot, why didn't they go the easier route and have Torricelli resign from the Senate?

The fact that the NJ Court was unanimous in it's decision is not a straw man.  It illustrates quite clearly that this case isn't nearly as partisan an issue as you want it to be.  

As for election laws being overturned on a whim, whose whim again was that? The Democrats?  Or the 4 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Independent on the NJ Court?

Here is a part of the ruling that will surely send all the "rule of law" whiners crying into the hills:

And the Court having determined that [the law in question] does not preclude the possibility of a vacancy occuring within fifty-one days of the election[...]

So was this law still "overthrown"?

[Kieran]

I said the Dems argued a loophole, and they did. I also say they are beginning to show a reluctance to follow election laws, and I stand by that.

[Erlkonig]

And more:

And the Court being of the view that

[it] is in the public interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups.

And the Court remaining of the view that the election statues should be liberally construed

to allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow candidates to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow voters a choice on Election Day.

As for the military voters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32368-2002Oct2.html):

An attorney for the state's 21 county clerks told the justices that 106 military overseas ballots have been mailed. But he also said there is still time to print new ones and get them to voters along with instructions that the original ballots are invalid. He added, however, that with 34 days until the election, there is little time to spare.

"We are in the window where it's feasible if the money is there," said John Carbone, representing the county clerks. "If we go beyond Wednesday of next week, Tuesday of next week, it's not going to be doable no matter how deep the pockets."

So it looks to me like the Republicans are the ones currently obstructing the election process for military voters.  Of course, no matter which ballot they get, Forrester's name will be on it.

But my favorite illustration of Republican hysteria over this is in the following:

In response, a somewhat baffled [Justice] Verniero, recalling Forrester's repeated demands that Torricelli step down after being "severely admonished" by the Senate ethics committee, asked Sheridan: "Didn't Mr. Forrester call for Mr. Torricelli to withdraw? Was he expecting to run unopposed?"

[john9001]

if Torricelli had steped down after being "severely admonished" by the Senate ethics committee, we would not be having this discussion, it was only after he dropped in the polls that the demo party forced him to drop out, he did not even have to resign , just say he would not run again.

[Erlkonig]

Forrester is more of creep than I had ever realized. Turns he did in the primary exactly what he accuses the Democrats of doing now: (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/05/nyregion/05JERS.html)

Mr. Genova [Democrat Party lawyer] also uncovered a legal memorandum from Mr. Forrester's lawyer written in April, when State Senator Diane Allen, one of Mr. Forrester's opponents in the Republican primary, was trying to block him from taking the ballot position of James W. Treffinger. Mr. Treffinger, the Essex County executive, had resigned from the race because of scandal three days earlier, or 40 days before the primary.

Senator Allen maintained that moving Mr. Forrester's name to Mr. Treffinger's place on the ballot would come too late under Title 19 of the state election law, which sets a deadline of 51 days before an election for ballot substitutions. It is the same argument that Mr. Forrester's lawyer, Peter G. Sheridan, made before the State Supreme Court on Wednesday, opposing Mr. Lautenberg's placement on the ballot. The Democrats said that the deadline was merely a guideline.

In April, Mr. Sheridan read the law the way the Democrats do today.

"Strict compliance to statutory requirements and deadlines within Title 19," Mr. Sheridan wrote, "are set aside where such rights may be accommodated without significantly impinging upon the election process."

Guess we know now who really set the precedent.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Kieran
Tell me, what is the striking feature of a banana republic?

Let's see...
No voting?
Dictatorship?
No freedom and democracy?

Again, tell me how we're a banana republic? LOL You need to relax, the sky is not falling.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by SaburoS


Let's see...
No voting?
Dictatorship?
No freedom and democracy?

Again, tell me how we're a banana republic? LOL You need to relax, the sky is not falling.

Even if the NJ Supreme Court had ruled the other way, there would still have been five (5 count 'em) senatorial candidates to choose from.

Green
Socialist
Liberatatian
Conservative
Republican

Doesn't look like the position that the Republicans were trying to limit the choice to only one[/b] holds water.

[Kieran]

Yup, HMc. This "we're just looking out for the voter" nonsense is simply that. And yeah, I do think it is a terrible precedent.