Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on October 02, 2002, 06:32:29 PM
-
N.J. Courts Rule Democrats Can Replace Torricelli
How can they just rewrite the law?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/20021002/ts_nm/politics_newjersey_dc
As I understand it, there isn't any recourse as this is a state issue and the state's "Supreme" court just "fixed" it for the handsomehunkcrats
never ceased to be amazed by the outright illegal, immoral, liberal handsomehunkes called democrats :rolleyes:
-
How can they just rewrite the law?
As I understand it, there isn't any recourse as this is a state issue and the country's "Supreme" court just "fixed" it for the ratpublicans.
Heheh, this sounds familiar.
-
Florida and New Jersey have achieved balance. :D
-
Thrawn-
I realize you're Canadian, but you have to agree there is a pattern emerging here with the Democrats during elections- if you don't agree with the application of the law, take it to the State Supreme Court. It does render laws rather meaningless, doesn't it? And... think of all the wonderful elections we'll now have! Is your candidate 20pts behind in the polls? Replace him!
Heck, think about the next presidential election! "We want Hillary... er, no, we wanted Gore! That's right, Gore!... er, wait, we meant Bradley, that's right, Bradley!... but wait...Daschle is looking less wimpy now..."
-
Eagler, just wait till election day and see what the Dems do in Missouri!!
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Thrawn-
I realize you're Canadian, but you have to agree there is a pattern emerging here with the Democrats during elections- if you don't agree with the application of the law, take it to the State Supreme Court.
Oh, absolutely. I was having fun at Eagler's expense. My apologies.
-
never ceased to be amazed by the outright illegal, immoral, liberal handsomehunkes called democrats
aparently it's ok for the courts and a brother on the election board to fix a presidential election. but if you want the courts work the other way it's a problem :rolleyes:
I'll trade ya straight up. one presidential election (deciding who wins) for one congresional election(deciding who can try to win.
I don't nescasarily agree with this decision but it stinks no more than florida in november.
why do the same people who said "the courts decided live with it." cry the loudest when the courts don't go their way.
-
the absentee ballots are already printed with the torch and have been distributed
what'll happen there?
Florida 2000 did not rewrite any law in the election process
NJ flat out broke it - amazing
and are the ppl of NJ so desperate they'll go along with the crime and vote for the illegally appointed handsomehunkcrat rep?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the absentee ballots are already printed with the torch and have been distributed
what'll happen there?
Florida 2000 did not rewrite any law in the election process
NJ flat out broke it - amazing
and are the ppl of NJ so desperate they'll go along with the crime and vote for the illegally appointed handsomehunkcrat rep?
What's the check and balance for the NJ state judicary?
-
U.S. Supreme Court . And here we go again.
Those Reps wont let us cheat. How can that be? LOL
-
the "brother" was not on any election board, can't you liberals every stop lieing?
-
"4. The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Superior Court shall be subject to impeachment, and any judicial officer impeached shall not exercise his office until acquitted. The Judges of the Superior Court shall also be subject to removal from office by the Supreme Court for such causes and in such manner as shall be provided by law."
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp
-
Hey Capt., my memory must be better than yours. As I recall, the Dems wanted a recount- and got it. Then they wanted another- and got it. Then the deadline came and went- you know, the deadline set by law? Then the Dems went to the SSC and got an illegal extension.
Refresh my memory, who was trying to fix an election?
-
Maybe we should all just start mailing our ballots directly to the US Supreme Court. ;)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What's the check and balance for the NJ state judicary?
The sopranos :)
-
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. Spend a few million dollars but make sure you never debate the other guy. Distort their record and insult their integrity, like they do now only with a twist. Your average voter hates negitive ads even if they do work.
So if your guy isnt doing all that hot in the polls, pull him out and insert the NEW and improved nice guy canidate. Make sure he plays the good cop and never mention the other canidates flaws base it totaly on platform differences. In the background the other political hacks continue the assault and if all goes well, you have a winner.
-
I normally don't respond to the O'club threads, but this subject just burns me.
Reading the Trenton Times article N.J. court OKs Lautenberg (http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1033639354292350.xml) I was struck by the fact that the Democrats and NJ Supreme court don't consider quote, unquote 3rd party candidates as being a valid choice.
Yesterday's state Supreme Court ruling was issued hours after an almost three-hour hearing that saw justices ask detailed questions of and hear arguments from lawyers for the two major parties, state officials and two third-party candidates.
So the race had three viable choices for the voters, but since one of those choices wasn't a Democrat, this bi-partisan (ie made up of Dems and Reps) couldn't stand the thought of proceeding because it didn't give the people of NJ enough choices. Bull!
Additionally,
State election laws should be "liberally construed to allow for the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot and, most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on Election Day," the justices wrote.
With the above statement, can I register a politcal party on Oct 1 of an election year and say that because people need a choice, the canidate I chose should be on the ballot? Seems like I should be able to with this blurb of the ruling. Granted taken out of context and doesn't really look at the other parts of the ruling or NJ law, but hey, its my right to pick and choose what parts of the "law" pertain to me or to adjust the interpretation of the laws to suit my needs.
And
What part of the election process says that a small group, probably made up of mostly white men, gets to choose who I get to vote for. Isn't the "primary elections" the point where the (insert your registered political party here) members choose who they want on the general election ballot?
And finally,
Dfl8rms for US Senate in 2002, vote for the blind, hairy bat! At least I'll have an excuse to overlook the corruption
:D ;) :D
Flame on
-
Its just another example of "Rules? Schmules..." in the Democratic mindset. The Torch quit because he knew he couldn't win. That's called a forfeit.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the "brother" was not on any election board, can't you liberals every stop lieing?
Can't you conservatives ever stop generalizing? You guys always say the same thing, all of you!
-
All those lawyers gotta find something to do. There's only so many ambulances to chase.
-
Sigh.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Neither party has a monopoly on virtue.
I have an idea that would solve this problem. Place the names of all Americans qualified by education or personal expertise to be government officials in a computer bank. On election day, have the computer randomly select people to be the President, Vice-President, cabinet members, and congressional representatives.
Think of the money it would save in campaign expenses and political wrangling.
That would be fair wouldn't it? :rolleyes:
Regards, Shuckins
-
On the other hand, think of all the entertainment we would lose! ;)
Regards, Shuckins
-
So when a court rules in favor of a Democrat, then the law is flushed, but if it rules in favor of a Republican the law is upheld? :Roll freakin eyes:
(notice I did not write Republiclown, Ratpublican, Repiece-o-craplican, Retiree-ican, Relephantican, or Stupid ignorant turdican)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Can't you conservatives ever stop generalizing? You guys always say the same thing, all of you!
And can't you libs ever answer the question originally asked?;) Just poking fun, Midnight...Generalizations are rampant in politics, on both sides. Why? Because when you generalize you don't have to provide any actual facts.
Incidently, the NJ court ruling ignores the reason the law was written the way it was in the first place; i.e. to keep a party from pulling a sure-looser candidate at the last moment in hopes for an election day miracle. The comment about "insuring voters have a choice" does indeed ignore the facts that a) the voters chose Torch as the Dem candidate during the primary elections and b) there were apparently at least 2 third-party candidates (in addition to the Repub. candidate. Torch had not been convicted of a crime, so there was nothing to prevent him from excercising the office if he won. Therefore, he was still a valid candidate (perhaps not a viable one, but a valid one). This ruling is just plain wrong, and is indefensible under the bright-glare of reason.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
This ruling is just plain wrong, and is indefensible under the bright-glare of reason.
Uhoh.... he used the common sense argument... :)
-
Originally posted by john9001
the "brother" was not on any election board, can't you liberals every stop lieing?
Can't you Republicans ever start spelling?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So when a court rules in favor of a Democrat, then the law is flushed, but if it rules in favor of a Republican the law is upheld? :Roll freakin eyes:
No. It's just when the law says "The candidate can be substituted up to 58 days prior to the election", most people believe it means "The candidate cannot be substituted less than 58 days prior to the election".
The court's ruling is exactly that - the law specifies that substitution can be done before the deadline but does not say that it cannot be done after the deadline. Basically, the law is completely meaningless because it does not mean anything and there was no purpose in enacting it.
miko
-
And since it is the court's job to interpret the law they did exactly the right thing.
The Cheif Justice is a republican BTW.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And since it is the court's job to interpret the law they did exactly the right thing.
The Cheif Justice is a republican BTW.
did they clarify what "is" is while they were at it?
they danced around the wording of the law, found what they think is a loophole or what most ppl with any scruples call it - broke the law :rolleyes:
-
did they clarify what "is" is while they were at it?
Yawn... I think I've seen this before.
Here ya go.
is Pronunciation Key (z)
v.
Third person singular present indicative of be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old English. See es- in Indo-European Roots.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
be Pronunciation Key (b)
v. First and third person singular past indicative was, (wz, wz; wz when unstressed)second person singular and plural and first and third person plural past indicative were, (wûr)past subjunctive were,past participle been, (bn)present participle be·ing, (bng)first person singular present indicative am, (m)second person singular and plural and first and third person plural present indicative are, (är)third person singular present indicative is, (z)present subjunctive be
v. intr.
To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.
To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?
Used as a copula in such senses as:
To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a Roman” (James Bryce).
To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.
To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.
To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.
v. aux.
Used with the past participle of a transitive verb to form the passive voice: The mayoral election is held annually.
Used with the present participle of a verb to express a continuing action: We are working to improve housing conditions.
Used with the infinitive of a verb to express intention, obligation, or future action: She was to call before she left. You are to make the necessary changes.
Archaic. Used with the past participle of certain intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense: “Where be those roses gone which sweetened so our eyes?” (Philip Sidney).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English ben, from Old English bon; see bheu- in Indo-European Roots. See am1 is, etc. for links to other Indo-European roots.]
Usage Note: Traditional grammar requires the nominative form of the pronoun in the predicate of the verb be: It is I (not me); That must be they (not them), and so forth. Nearly every speaker of Modern English finds this rule difficult to follow. Even if everyone could follow it, in informal contexts the nominative pronoun often sounds pedantic and even ridiculous, especially when the verb is contracted, as in It's we. But constructions like It is me have been condemned in the classroom and in writing handbooks for so long that there seems little likelihood that they will ever be entirely acceptable in formal writing. ·The traditional rule creates additional problems when the pronoun following be also functions as the object of a verb or preposition in a relative clause, as in It is not them/they that we have in mind when we talk about “crime in the streets” nowadays, where the plural pronoun serves as both the predicate of is and the object of have. In this example, 57 percent of the Usage Panel prefers the nominative form they, 33 percent prefer the objective them, and 10 percent accept both versions. Writers can usually revise their sentences to avoid this problem: They are not the ones we have in mind, We have someone else in mind, and so on. See Usage Note at I1. See Usage Note at we.
Our Living Language In place of the inflected forms of be, such as is and are, used in Standard English, African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and some varieties of Southern American English may use zero copula or an invariant be, as in He be working, instead of the Standard English He is usually working. As an identifying feature of the vernacular of many African Americans, invariant be in recent years has been frequently seized on by writers and commentators trying to imitate or parody Black speech. However, most imitators use it simply as a substitute for is, as in John be sitting in that chair now, without realizing that within AAVE, invariant be is used primarily for habitual or extended actions set in the present. Among African Americans the form is most commonly used by working-class speakers and young persons. Since the 1980s, younger speakers have tended to restrict the use of the form to progressive verb forms (as in He be walking), whereas their parents use it with progressives, adjectives (as in He be nice), and expressions referring to a location (as in He be at home). Younger speakers also use invariant be more exclusively to indicate habitual action, whereas older speakers more commonly omit be forms (as in He walking) or use present tense verb forms (such as He walks), sometimes with adverbs like often or usually, to indicate habituality. ·The source of invariant habitual be in AAVE is still disputed. Some linguists suggest that it represents influence from finite be in the 17th- to 19th-century English of British settlers, especially those from the southwest of England. Other linguists feel that contemporaneous Irish or Scotch-Irish immigrants may have played a larger role, since their dialects mark habitual verb forms with be and do be, as in “They be shooting and fishing out at the Forestry Lakes” (archival recordings of the Royal Irish Academy). and “Up half the night he does be” (James Joyce). Other linguists believe that it may have evolved from the does be construction indicating habitual action used by Gullah speakers from coastal South Carolina and Georgia and by Caribbean Creole immigants. Still other linguists suggest that invariant be is a mid- to late-20th-century innovation within AAVE, essentially a response to the wide range of meanings that the English progressive tense can express. See note at all. See note at like2. See note at zero copula.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
simple huh?
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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 :D
-
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""
-
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!!
-
LOL!
The Dems didn't break the law! The Rebublican judge said so! Take the issue up with him. Silly rabbits.
-
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.
-
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?
-
If I say you can buy a car for the next five days, does that mean you can't buy a car after?
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thrawn-
Bad example. If I run a sale for a set number of days, and you come in three days late, are you entitled to sale price?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
(notice I did not write Republiclown, Ratpublican, Repiece-o-craplican, Retiree-ican, Relephantican, or Stupid ignorant turdican)
ROFL!!!!!!
Almost knocked my keyboard over!
-
Seems we're missing the point about the law in this case. Isn't the goal of laws in a democracy to encourage voting, not discourage it? The Chief Justice, a Republican did his job and did the right thing. I would expect a Democrat Chief Justice to make the same ruling for the Republicans if the role was reversed. Not allowing a political party to introduce a candidate due to unforeseen circumstances is a bad law.
BTW for those of you that seem to have an adolescent need to 'catagorize' and silly name calling:
I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.
The right thing was done in this case IMHO.
-
Bad reasoning.
Why was there no Democratic option? Because the candidate withdrew.
Why did the candidate withdraw? Because he was losing.
Why say there were no other options? There are third-party candidates on the ballot (apparently).
This isn't about setting right a wrong, this is about changing the rules because you're losing. No, I don't think this ruling defended voters in any way. Worse, it set an example the whole country is going to have to live with.
-
I'll be a Stupid ignorant turdican rather than a lying, stealing, cheating, corrupt "Democrat" anyday
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I'll be a Stupid ignorant turdican rather than a lying, stealing, cheating, corrupt "Democrat" anyday
But if there are "lying, stealing, cheating, corrupt Republicans" then it's okay? ROFL!!!! You are sooo funny! hehe
Personally I wouldn't want anyone in charge of anything important if they were:
Stupid, ignorant, lying, cheating, and/or corrupt no matter the political affiliation.
Too many bad things happen that way.
-
you must hate our entire government....
-
"The Chief Justice, a Republican "
Nice spin. It almost makes me overlook the fact that two of the justice's made personal contributions to the "Torch's" campaign in '99.
-
Originally posted by Udie
you must hate our entire government....
LOL Udie, you're too funny :) . Because you might 'hate', doesn't mean that I do. Please really READ and comprehend what I posted above and tell me how I hate. Rather disappointed is what I am feeling actually. When you go fishing and don't catch anything, do you hate the fish, your equipment, and/or fishing in general, or are you disappointed?
-
This isn't about setting right a wrong, this is about changing the rules because you're losing. No, I don't think this ruling defended voters in any way. Worse, it set an example the whole country is going to have to live with.
Do you honestly think that politicians are the type of people willing to keep ringers hanging around in the background "just in case"? Would any replacement really be more electable than the current cadidate behind in the polls? Wouldn't this replacement probably be the current candidate if that were the case? The way this situation has played out so far makes the Republicans look deathly afraid of running against an electable opponent.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Do you honestly think that politicians are the type of people willing to keep ringers hanging around in the background "just in case"? Would any replacement really be more electable than the current cadidate behind in the polls? Wouldn't this replacement probably be the current candidate if that were the case? The way this situation has played out so far makes the Republicans look deathly afraid of running against an electable opponent.
ROFLOL!!! :D
That way the torch quit? Seems the dems are afraid to run an ELECTED opponent. ;)
-
Erlkonig-
I honestly think that after the deadline the Democrats found their man un-electable. I honestly believe they think a "Hail Mary" is better than no shot at all. I honestly believe they do not have voter's interests in mind on this ruling- any more than they did when calling for selected recounts in Florida. It's about winning at any cost.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
It's about winning at any cost.
Desperate measures in desperate times...its about control. They still haven't got over the loss of the House in 1994, after 40 years of controlling it.
-
I honestly think that after the deadline the Democrats found their man un-electable. I honestly believe they think a "Hail Mary" is better than no shot at all.
My understanding is that the current situation could have been avoided had Torricelli resigned from the Senate rather than withdraw from the election. If this is the case than it would seem to undermine the contention that this is all some sort of Democrat conspiracy. Moreover, there is the fact that the 2 Republicans and 1 Independent on the NJ Court that ruled in favor of the Democrats case (and you probably ought to be more concerned what they think vis a vis voters' interests anyway).
In any case my original post was a response to the idea that somehow this case is going to set a precedent in election abuse.
-
Don't evade the point; there is a law, the Dems weren't happy about the application of the law, they argued a loophole and won. They didn't do it for the voters, they did it for themselves. Their argument (giving the voters choice) is hollow in light of the fact the situation was created by the Democrats themselves and there is a third-party candidate. The fact is (no matter what spin you apply) the Dems felt they were going to lose, the Torch stepped aside, and the Dems went to court to get a freebie.
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.
-
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? ;)
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;) :rolleyes: 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?
-
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 ;) :rolleyes: 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).
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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?"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by 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.
LOL! Kieran, my guess is that if the roles were reversed, you'd be whining about the 'anti-Republican' forces at work because the Republicans would not be able to allow a candidate to be put on the ballot after the deadline of a bad law. It is a good precedent. I would be saying the exact same thing if it were the Republicans in the Democrat's situation. You still think we're a banana republic? SHEESH!
Chill out. THE SKY IS NOT FALLING! Move on and get over it.
-
My guess is you'll never know. I never said anything about "Anti-Republican forces" (I'll leave the "vast right-wing conspiracy" comments to a certain ex-first lady). I am not even really criticizing the court- though some of you have suggested that. I am pointing out the apparent trend of the Democratic party to exploit the legal system to overtturn election events that they themselves cannot do within traditional election procedure.
You don't find it odd that twice in the last two national elections the Democrats have run whining to the state supreme courts to gain exceptions to existing laws?
Oops, forgot to add "we are a banana republic".
-
So does everyone agree that if Torricelli could not be replaced, the only fair and consistent thing to do would be to remove Forrester from the ballot as well (see the story in my last post)?
It bears worth repeating the following:
The Democrats did nothing illegal.
The NJ Supreme Court did its job, clarifying the ambiguity the the law in question, based on precedent and intent of the law. This is all within the system of law.
If this is an "exploitation" of the legal system, then I don't know why it even exists.
Since it has so far been a matter of state law, all these fitful calls of banana republics aren't even coherent.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
It bears worth repeating the following:
The Democrats did nothing illegal.
which one?
the one so crooked he had to resign?
or the group of handsomehunkcrats which twisted the law to plug a hole caused by the one so crooked he had to resign?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
So does everyone agree that if Torricelli could not be replaced, the only fair and consistent thing to do would be to remove Forrester from the ballot as well (see the story in my last post)?
Where does that come from? Forrester had his name on the ballot in time for printing and absentee ballot mailings.
The NJ Supreme Court did its job, clarifying the ambiguity the the law in question, based on precedent and intent of the law. This is all within the system of law.
What's ambiguous about something like "Nominees must be registered with the board of elections 51 days prior to election day"?
-
Dinnae if we're at the banana republic stage yet, but the precedent set by this one gives me the willies.
Why was the deadline set at 51days before the election when that law was written? Surely there's a good reason for it.
I see Elkornig quoting an article about how time pressed they're gonna be to get the ballots changed and sent out to the military/overseas folks. Like the Dems care one whit about that, they'd probably rather not have the absentee votes counted at all. Least the court ordered the Dems to fork over the dough to cover thier changes, estimated at $800,000. (found in same article Elkornig linked).
See several folks rambling on and on about "you don't like it when the table is turned do you?" in reference to the presidential elections. Someone refresh my memory on this point (cause I know how I think it went, but to be fair... ) who ran to the courts first, and why, in that fiasco? Way I remember the end of that mess it was Bush's people basically asking the courts to say 'enough is enough, you've had yer recounts and bent the law enough'. Seems to me in both these instances it's been the Dems runnin for the courtroom to get the laws changed, and the Reps right behind'em fighting to have the laws stand (and try to steal the win in the case of the pres elections).
/shrug
Country's goin to hell in a handbasket that's in a wagon pulled by a donkey.
-
read what erl quoted above, hell ill quote it again because you obviously missed it
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."
-
Erlkonig-
Please point to where I suggested any laws were broken.
I have kept my points brief and pointed- the Dems are developing a nasty habit of running to court to overturn election prodedures in place. As much as you'd like to say it isn't so, or bring in some ridiculous analogy about removing a Republican candidate that didn't drop out of the race of his own accord, the fact remains there is a law the Dems successfully argued around in court. Legal- yes. Going around the intent of the law- yes.
-
I really like when they call a "law" a "guideline"
think we can do that when we get pulled over for our next traffic ticket?
how about next april, I'll just take that tax "guideline" and send the IRS what I feel like sending them :rolleyes:
-
Perhaps you would like to explain how the Democrats were going around the intent of the law, when the NJ Court - the final arbiter of such matters - decides they were well within such bounds? I simply cannot understand how you can claim that the Democrats subverted the law without disagreeing with the NJ Court, something you seem hesitant to do.
Rediculous analogy? Replace Torricelli with Treffinger, Lautenberg with Forrester, October with April and you have the exact same scenario. Analogous would be an understatment. It's the same 51 day deadline!
CavemanJ - since this has been a matter of state law there is no legal precedent set outside NJ.
-
I was just thinking that after the first two games, it was pretty obvious that the Cardinals were going to beat the Arizona Diamondbacks, so MLB should have replaced Arizona with the Dodgers, and start the series over. Its only fair. ;)
-
Holden, isn't it a bit silly to claim non-ambiguity when you don't even know the exact wording?
-
the Supreme Courts do not alway rule correctly (IE dredd scott decision) they are only people , not gods.
-
I guess maybe it says kinda sorta 51 days.
-
Banana republic. ;)
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Holden, isn't it a bit silly to claim non-ambiguity when you don't even know the exact wording?
I was taking an educated guess: Mea culpa
Here is the law that I think applies, after an hour of law reading:
19:13-19. Nomination of successor
If the candidate vacating the nomination was nominated directly by petition his successor shall be nominated in the same manner by direct petition, which new petition of nomination must be filed with the Secretary of State or county clerk, as the case may require, not later than 54 days before the day of election whereas such candidate is to be voted for.
Your right! ambiguous as hell! :rolleyes:
And the law does end in a preposition.
-
Thanks for digging that up.
So you agree that Forrester should not be allowed on the ballot? :)
-
<<>>
The Supreme Court wrote our abortion laws. Penumbras and all that.
ra
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
CavemanJ - since this has been a matter of state law there is no legal precedent set outside NJ.
Erl I was referring to the precedent this incident has set, not saying there had already been a similar case that set a precedent.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
So you agree that Forrester should not be allowed on the ballot?
I haven't researched your previous quote, but it appears that Forrester was already on the ballot and wished to have his name moved to a more favorable position on the ballot. (At least that's what I got out of what you quoted). That is entirely different than not having your name on the ballot, not being registered for the election prior to 51 or 54 days.
-
yeah... Forrester did not pull out in discrace, why should he be removed? Or do you want[/b] the socialist candidate to be elected?:p
-
Whether Forrester was on the ballot or not is irrelevent!
The point is that he or his lawyers used the same exception to the same law and got the same ruling. You guys really need to read before you post.
-
Originally posted by dfl8rms
I haven't researched your previous quote, but it appears that Forrester was already on the ballot and wished to have his name moved to a more favorable position on the ballot. (At least that's what I got out of what you quoted). That is entirely different than not having your name on the ballot, not being registered for the election prior to 51 or 54 days.
Man, talk about using something out of context! I kind of thought there was something fishy about Erlkonig's post. I went back also and researched some. It appears that Forrester was not a last minute addition to the primary election ballet, as Erlkonig's post would imply.
-
Erlkonig wrote:
Perhaps you would like to explain how the Democrats were going around the intent of the law, when the NJ Court - the final arbiter of such matters - decides they were well within such bounds? I simply cannot understand how you can claim that the Democrats subverted the law without disagreeing with the NJ Court, something you seem hesitant to do.
Erlkonig I seem to remember people saying the same thing about the FSC and yet THEY weren't last word either.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Whether Forrester was on the ballot or not is irrelevent!
The point is that he or his lawyers used the same exception to the same law and got the same ruling. You guys really need to read before you post.
19:13-19. Nomination of successor
If the candidate vacating the nomination was nominated directly by petition his successor shall be nominated in the same manner by direct petition, which new petition of nomination must be filed with the Secretary of State or county clerk, as the case may require, not later than 54 days before the day of election whereas such candidate is to be voted for.
Forrester was on the ballot, he was not a sucessor, and as it was a primary, Treffinger was not a nominee.
These are quite relevant. Maybe you should reason before you post.:rolleyes:
-
You are correct, dfl8rms, the comparison is not as strong as I wanted it to be, at least concretely. However, this is a minor quibble, since the fact remains that Forrester did the exact same thing that he accuses Lautenberg of doing now (violating the statute that doesn't allow ballot substitutions after the 51 day deadline). I still think that if his primary candicacy violated election law (as would Lautenberg's non-primary) than it wouldn't be unreasonable to toss him from the ballot. I would rather see him lose in an election, though.
Holden, you ought to join Forrester's legal team! How silly that they argued exactly what the Democrats did for Torricelli's replacement. That or you could read all of Title 19. I think 19:13-20 mentions the 51 day deadline, but I can't find the text online.
-
Holden is an engineer, not a lawyer. So I am not good at lying, and I prefer logic to weaseling, so I would have no chance in the courtroom.
The upper courts have ruled that the NJ SC decision stands, so by the courts decree, I am wrong and the lib's are right.
Oh yeah, and by the papal infallability of the court system, OJ didn't do it.;)