Author Topic: NJ flushes the law (Read 2433 times)

Wotan · « **Reply #30 on:** October 03, 2002, 12:03:31 PM »

Its up to NJ to decide this. I dont think the Republicans should drag this to the US supreme Court.

This hands them (republicans) a pretty big hammer anyway.

I never liked the idea of having names printed on a ballot. 3rd party candidates who rarely have the money to run a petition drive to get their names added to the ballots in every state (perots group is an exception). I have always wondered what the world thought of our Democracy when we cling to the idea of a 2 party system. I would agree that our form of Democracy has been more stable politically.

However, many people forget that you can write in anyone you want. Its the individual voter who decides to limit their choices when he/she decides to vote for "the lessor of evils". I heard that alot over the past 2 presidential campaigns. Each voter has an umlimited number of choices, from chosing not to vote, to writing in a someone. The idea that we need to have 1 democrat or 1 republican's name printed on a ballot in the name of "choice" is rediculous.

I completely understand the practicality behind having printed a ballot. I just think it prevents the rise of 3rd party alternatives.

OZkansas · « **Reply #31 on:** October 03, 2002, 12:11:17 PM »

NJ will have alot of extra money in the future. Now that the courts have made anything the legislature enacts into law and the Governer signs totally invalid. Why even have those 2 parts of the government? Huge saving in personel and salaries!!

Udie · « **Reply #32 on:** October 03, 2002, 12:26:45 PM »

lol typical democrat law breaking....

Thank GOD I'm not a democrat. But thank GOD even more that I'm not a democrat in NJ. Thank GOD my candidtate was chosen in a legal vote and not picked by bill clinton and a couple of other prominent liberal pinheads.

Hey democrats, why have a constitution? Why have any federal or state governments when you guys obviously know how the world should be run.

Once again.... Democrats make me want to VOMIT.....

Come on NOVEMBER!!!! 1 month and you guys lose your power in the senate

john9001 · « **Reply #33 on:** October 03, 2002, 12:39:59 PM »

this whole thing is moot anyway, that old man ( 78 ) the demos pulled out of retirment will never win , he was their 4th or 7th choice depending on who is talking, none of the demos 1st choices wanted to run this late. he could barely make his 'acceptance" speech, ""ah er ah i will fight for new jersey ah er ah and poulition and womens rights an er some other stuff, thank you""

Mighty1 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 03, 2002, 01:23:06 PM »

It doesn't matter if he wins or loses the point is he should never have been on the ballot in the first place.

The rules were simple-you have till 51 days before the election to make any changes. The time came and went with no changes made.

Now that the Democratic party loses their candidate because he withdraws from the race on his own by the way and now they want to change the rules.

What is their first reaction? Go to court to change the rule in their favor! Sound familiar?

Now the Democrats are already screaming at the Republicans saying that they are doing something wrong by appealing the decision!

I've never hated a group more in my life like I hate the Democratic party! They are the biggest liars and cheats I have ever seen.

I fully understand that almost all politicians are liars but Democrats take it to a whole new level!:mad:

All I can say is that there is a place in hell for all Democrats and the sooner they get there the better off we will be!!

Thrawn · « **Reply #35 on:** October 03, 2002, 01:36:49 PM »

LOL!

The Dems didn't break the law! The Rebublican judge said so! Take the issue up with him. Silly rabbits.

Thrawn · « **Reply #36 on:** October 03, 2002, 01:38:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mighty1
The rules were simple-you have till 58 days before the election to make any changes.

I guess the rules weren't that simple, as what you posted isn't the rules at all.

midnight Target · « **Reply #37 on:** October 03, 2002, 01:38:53 PM »

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?

Thrawn · « **Reply #38 on:** October 03, 2002, 01:41:31 PM »

If I say you can buy a car for the next five days, does that mean you can't buy a car after?

miko2d · « **Reply #39 on:** October 03, 2002, 01:46:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
this whole thing is moot anyway, that old man ( 78 ) the demos pulled out of retirment will never win , he was their 4th or 7th choice depending on who is talking...

Who cares how old is he? He resigns or kicks the bucket and the governor appoints another democrat nobody voted for.

miko

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #40 on:** October 03, 2002, 02:07:35 PM »

Actually, I couldn't care less if Toricelli stays on the ballot or not. If a candidate chooses to drop out, his or her party ought to have the option of replacing them. On the other hand, if New Jersey had a law in place forbidding the insertion of a new candidate after a certain date, then the law should be obeyed. Taking the case to the Supreme Court is ridiculous. The Constitution gives the states the responsibility for running and financing all elections. I doubt that the Court would even consider this case.

Regards, Shuckins

Eagler · « **Reply #41 on:** October 03, 2002, 02:26:19 PM »

the dumbacrats motto

win by hook or crook

no morals or integrity

the "judges" are no better -> it's all about who is padding who's pocket

the torch got caught with his hand in the wrong pocket, so he quit, the dems changed the law with the buddy buddy system and now have an old fart in place of a crook

the real test now is for the NJ voters

if they elect the illegally selected replacement, well then they deserve each other ... by hook or crook - we'll see

Wotan · « **Reply #42 on:** October 03, 2002, 02:32:18 PM »

Quote

Taking the case to the Supreme Court is ridiculous. The Constitution gives the states the responsibility for running and financing all elections. I doubt that the Court would even consider this case.

I agree. Its over. The republicans have a good campaign issue its still theirs to lose.

mietla · « **Reply #43 on:** October 03, 2002, 02:55:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d

Who cares how old is he? He resigns or kicks the bucket and the governor appoints another democrat nobody voted for.

And that is exactly their plan

.

FL and NJ

A thief is trying to steal twice, he fails first time but succeeds the second time.

"There is justice. It's only fair, I lost once and I won once" says a democrat thief.

In both cases dems lost based on the existing law, and in both cases they've used a democrat loaded courts to screw the law and reverse the result.

Kieran · « **Reply #44 on:** October 03, 2002, 03:18:04 PM »

Quote

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?

I'll take the bait. Seems there was this law. Seems the law said after a certain period of time you couldn't change candidates, even if he was behind in the polls, and even if it meant losing the majority in the Senate. Seems the party in question wasn't about to let any law get in their way, and took it to court to argue a loophole, and won. Seems like the party in question has burst a dam of possibilities with such a precedent (oh, wait, that happened in Florida when the third recount was not enough/done on time, and taken to court).

Elections will never be the same. We truly are now a banana republic.