NJ Supreme Court rules for the Dems [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : NJ Supreme Court rules for the Dems

oracle

10-02-2002, 05:09 PM

Just announced on FoxNews.

RCRichards

10-02-2002, 05:11 PM

DUH

HarvickFan29

10-02-2002, 05:14 PM

If anyone tells me they're surprised, I'd have to believe they've been in a cave somewhere for about 60 yrs. images/icons/mad.gif

oracle

10-02-2002, 05:18 PM

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Dems (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64644,00.html)

Wednesday, October 02, 2002
http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif

TRENTON, N.J. — The New Jersey Supreme Court decided Wednesday to give New Jersey voters a new Democratic Senate candidate on the ballot.

In court for three hours Wednesday morning, both sides argued whether or not Democrats can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli -- who announced his withdrawal from the race Monday -- with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Torricelli foe but beloved retired state politician.

At issue was whether a candidate can be placed on the ballot with less than 51 days before the election to run against Republican businessman Doug Forrester.

Republicans argued that the only reason Torricelli, nicknamed "the Torch" for his fiery rhetoric, withdrew was because he was losing and didn't want to be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Republicans called the maneuver "a cynical abuse of the democratic process." Republicans are also concerned that absentee and military ballots that have been sent out, some of which have already been returned, will disenfranchise a segment of voters.

"What Doug Forrester expects is that every voter in New Jersey should have the right to vote, and by removing the ability of fighting men and women from military absentee ballots protected under federal law to vote, every New Jerseyan is not able to vote," said Forrester attorney Bill Baroni. "So what Doug Forrester expects is this strange and crazy idea that every voter should be allowed to vote and not have votes eliminated because of a change in the ballot, therefore making their votes impossible."

...

Click here to read more (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64644,00.html)

Maggie_T

10-02-2002, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by HarvickFan29:
If anyone tells me they're surprised, I'd have to believe they've been in a cave somewhere for about 60 yrs. images/icons/mad.gif I'm not surprised, Harv. But that doesn't mean I'm less furious.

Why do we bother having laws at all? It's obvious there are two kinds of people here: the democrats and the rest of the country.

The dems can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. The law only applies to Joe Doe and the Republicans. graemlins/icon122.gif

oracle

10-02-2002, 05:27 PM

Ruling: Dems Can Replace Torricellik (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=683&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20021002/ap_on_el_se/torricelli)
Wed Oct 2, 6:18 PM ET

By JOHN P. McALPIN, Associated Press Writer

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Giving hope to Democrats scrambling to retain control of the Senate, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the party can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the November ballot.

The ruling clears the way for former Sen. Frank Lautenberg to replace Torricelli in the Nov. 5 election.

The Democrats argued earlier in the day that it wasn't too late to replace Torricelli, even though he dropped out with only 36 days to the election. Republicans believed the law specified that a candidate can't be replaced when they drop out less than 51 days from the election.

Torricelli abruptly resigned Monday, citing continued questions of his ethics after a scandal involving illegal campaign donors.

"It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups," the court ruled in a unanimous decision.

The court said that the state Democratic party must pay for the ballots to be reprinted. State election officials estimate it will cost about $800,000 to do that.

State Attorney General David Samson will oversee the effort to certify the ballots, the court said.

...

Click here to read more (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=683&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20021002/ap_on_el_se/torricelli)

Venus

10-02-2002, 05:27 PM

The only saving grace here is that they moved swiftly. Now, on to the feds for an injunction.

Let's GET IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Westbrook

10-02-2002, 05:27 PM

I predict that Lautengburg will win the New Jersey Senate election.

Democrat baby burner Shaheen will win New Hamphire.

Shotgun-toting Carnaghan will win Mo.

The Dems take the Senate with a majority of at least two.

I hope that I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

ThomasIsUnderrated

10-02-2002, 05:29 PM

Hmmm.. this decision came just in time for the national news. Coincidence? I think not.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-02-2002, 05:30 PM

I sure hope you are wrong West.
The senate race here in Colorado is very, very tight. If the people are stupid, Strickland will win over Allard.

Westbrook

10-02-2002, 05:32 PM

From my humble ovservation, Tacitus, the people *ARE* stupid.

They should be crying for the Democrats' BLOOD!

Instead, they'll give them a majority in both houses.

That's the end of the Bush agenda.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-02-2002, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Venus:
The only saving grace here is that they moved swiftly. Now, on to the feds for an injunction.

Let's GET IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Do you think the Supremes will hear the case??

oracle

10-02-2002, 05:33 PM

You can read the decision here (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/m-245-02b.pdf) (Adobe Acrobat required).

PaulRevere

10-02-2002, 05:33 PM

After the FLSC ruling, this type of Demofascist arbitrary justice has to be expected, though I am no less outraged. How ever, in the wake of the Daschle pretentious tirade in the Senate and the McDermott-Bonior posturing with slanderous and traitorous remarks in Bagdad, how much more outrage do we have left to vent?

It all worries me terribly. I will be heartened if the voters in NJ and elsewhere are revulsed enough to vote for 'Pub candidates and we win the NJ, MN, SD, AK, CO, and MO senate races. If we don't win back the Senate and carry most of these states, I will be terribly disheartened.

ThomasIsUnderrated

10-02-2002, 05:35 PM

I am furious. Like Maggie said... WHY BOTHER HAVING LAWS AT ALL??? I give up. This is disgusting. FreeState project (or something like it) here we come.

graemlins/icon122.gif graemlins/icon122.gif graemlins/icon122.gif graemlins/icon122.gif graemlins/icon122.gif graemlins/icon122.gif graemlins/icon122.gif

HarvickFan29

10-02-2002, 05:37 PM

The dems are so predictable and they have desensitized us as to exactly how far they are willing to go to stay in power.

I saw Forrester on Hannity & Colmes the night Torricelli quit and Forrester said he had every confidence in the law. Hannity tried to tell him that the dems have no regard for rule of law and to get ready for a legal battle................

Westbrook

10-02-2002, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by PaulRevere:
If we don't win back the Senate and carry most of these states, I will be terribly disheartened.That will take a miracle at this point.

The Democrats trust Saddam more than they do our president, and the majority of the people agree with the Democrats on this one.

It looks to me like the Dems will take at least the Senate, and maybe even the house.

But do take heart, PaulRevere.

Know that "the most high ruleth in the kingdom of men and giveth to whomsoever He will.." Daniel 4:17, 4:25, 4:32. Note that God said this THREE times.

Venus

10-02-2002, 05:41 PM

Tac, I don't think SCOTUS will hear it, and I don't see a hook to get in there. I'm sure con lawyers are working on it, and I hope I'm wrong.

But, an appeal to fed district court, with an application for an injunction should be doable, IMHO. In any case, one normally doesn't appeal a state court decision (even from a state supreme court) directly to the SCOTUS.

West, I think you're overly-pessimistic, and that's comin' from another pessimist.

Oracle, thanks for getting the story and the decision up so quickly.

Longhorn_Platinum

10-02-2002, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Venus:
West, I think you're overly-pessimistic,...http://mysmilies.com/ubb/smilies/cwm1.gif I agree.

Venus

10-02-2002, 05:59 PM

A 'pub soldier overseas somewhere who's already completed his absentee ballot from NJ, or one who can't possibly get a ballot due to the delay, needs to step up and file suit asap.

Talk about creating an absolute media fiasco for the 'rats. images/icons/smile.gif

Warlady

10-02-2002, 06:56 PM

I'm not at all surprised.

West, for the Dems to win back the House they would have to win more than half of the tight races. That's not going to happen. The Dems are terrified they are going to lose the Senate too so yes you are being way too pessimistic.

West please read:

Democrats fear losing majority in Senate (http://208.185.249.64/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=023897#000000)

**DONOTDELETE**

10-02-2002, 07:30 PM

Horrible decision. They treat Kilmurray v. Gilfert as though it was solely decided on "public interest." The substitution was ruled valid in Kilmurray because, although the death occurred outside the vacancy period, the substitute name was in to the clerk's office within 34 days of the election, the requirement back then, so it still met part of the requirement. That case said: An interpretation of R.S. 19:13-20 so as to permit a county committee to fill a vacancy even though it did not occur more than 37 days prior to the election is both in the public interest and consistent with the statutory scheme.In today's decision, the Supreme Court ignored that second part and just paid attention to the "public interest" part (although the public interest in Kilmurray was a death and here was just someone withdrawing because they were losing in the polls). It did not matter that this was not in the statutory scheme. A democratic travesty. graemlins/icon21.gif

Warlady

10-02-2002, 07:32 PM

Venus, did you see Judge Napalotano on Fox just now? He thinks SCOTUS will hear the case and will overturn the decision of the liberal activist NJ Supremes.

Timberwolf

10-02-2002, 07:40 PM

The NJSC site Title 19:13-20 as their reasoning for allowing this travesty of justice. If they had bothered to read Title 19:13-20 they would have found this: 19:13-20. Vacancy procedure
19:13-20. In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner:

a. (1) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of the entire State, the candidate shall be selected by the State committee of the political party wherein such vacancy has occurred.

(2) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of a single and entire county, the candidate shall be selected by the county committee in such county of the political party wherein such vacancy has occurred.

(3) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of a portion of the State comprising all or part of two or more counties, the candidate shall be selected by those members of the county committees of the party wherein the vacancy has occurred who represent those portions of the respective counties which are comprised in the district from which the candidate is to be elected.

(4) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of a portion of a single county, the candidate shall be selected by those members of the county committee of the party wherein the vacancy has occurred who represent those portions of the county which are comprised in the district from which the candidate is to be elected.

At any meeting held for the selection of a candidate under this subsection, a majority of the persons eligible to vote thereat shall be required to be present for the conduct of any business, and no person shall be entitled to vote at that meeting who is appointed to the State committee or county committee after the seventh day preceding the date of the meeting.

In the case of a meeting held to select a candidate for other than a Statewide office, the chairman of the meeting shall be chosen by majority vote of the persons present and entitled to vote thereat. The chairman so chosen may propose rules to govern the determination of credentials and the procedures under which the meeting shall be conducted, and those rules shall be adopted upon a majority vote of the persons entitled to vote upon the selection. If a majority vote is not obtained for those rules, the delegates shall determine credentials and conduct the business of the meeting under such other rules as may be adopted by a majority vote. All contested votes taken at the selection meeting shall be by secret ballot.

b. (1) Whenever in accordance with subsection a. of this section members of two or more county committees are empowered to select a candidate to fill a vacancy, it shall be the responsibility of the chairmen of said county committees, acting jointly not later in any case than the seventh day following the occurrence of the vacancy, to give notice to each of the members of their respective committees who are so empowered of the date, time and place of the meeting at which the selection will be made, that meeting to be held at least one day following the date on which the notice is given.

(2) Whenever in accordance with the provisions of subsection a. of this section members of a county committee are empowered to select a candidate to fill a vacancy, it shall be the responsibility of the chairman of such county committee, not later in any case than the seventh day following the occurrence of the vacancy, to give notice to each of the members of the committee who are so empowered of the date, time and place of the meeting at which the selection will be made, that meeting to be held at least one day following the date on which the notice is given.

(3) A county committee chairman or chairmen who call a meeting pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection shall not be entitled to vote upon the selection of a candidate at such meeting unless he or they are so entitled pursuant to subsection a.

(4) Whenever in accordance with the provisions of subsection a. of this section the State committee of a political party is empowered to select a candidate to fill a vacancy, it shall be the responsibility of the chairman of that State committee to give notice to each of the members of the committee of the date, time and place of the meeting at which the selection will be made, that meeting to be held at least one day following the date on which the notice is given.

c. Whenever a selection is to be made pursuant to this section to fill a vacancy resulting from inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at a primary election, the selection shall be made from among those who have thus received the same number of votes at the primary.

d. A selection made pursuant to this section shall be made not later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election, and a statement of such selection shall be filed with the Secretary of State or the appropriate county clerk, as the case may be, not later than said 48th day, and in the following manner:

(1) A selection made by a State committee of political party shall be certified to the Secretary of State by the State chairman of the political party.

(2) A selection made by a county committee of a political party, or a portion of the members thereof, shall be certified to the county clerk of the county by the county chairman of such political party; except that when such selection is of a candidate for the Senate or General Assembly or the United States House of Representatives the county chairman shall certify the selection to the State chairman of such political party, who shall certify the same to the Secretary of State.

(3) A selection made by members of two or more county committees of a political party acting jointly shall be certified by the chairmen of said committees, acting jointly, to the State chairman of such political party, who shall certify the same to the Secretary of State.

e. A statement filed pursuant to subsection d. of this section shall state the residence and post office address of the person so selected, and shall certify that the person so selected is qualified under the laws of this State to be a candidate for such office, and is a member of the political party filling the vacancy. Accompanying the statement the person endorsed therein shall file a certificate stating that he is qualified under the laws of this State to be a candidate for the office mentioned in the statement, that he consents to stand as a candidate at the ensuing general election and that he is a member of the political party named in said statement, and further that he is not a member of, or identified with, any other political party or any political organization espousing the cause of candidates of any other political party, to which shall be annexed the oath of allegiance prescribed in R.S. 41:1-1 duly taken and subscribed by him before an officer authorized to take oaths in this State. The person so selected shall be the candidate of the party for such office at the ensuing general election.

Amended 1942,c.50,s.4; 1945,c.263; 1948,c.261; 1949,c.24,ss.4,12; 1972,c.181,s.1; 1981,c.346,s.1; 1985,c.92,s.14; 1988,c.126,s.1.MutherPusbucket!!!! All I can say is, "WTF????" This has "legislating from the bench" written ALL over it...

The Lengths to which Dimocraps will go to Stay in Power, part II or Floriduh Revisited.

Venus

10-02-2002, 07:40 PM

Oh, God, WL, I hope he's right. The only thing that gives me hope is the way the SCOTUS rolled up their sleeves and dove into Bush v. Gore two years ago with the narrow legal aperture found to get in. Of course there are lawyers working on it, and there are a variety of options and strategies available, but I sure don't see how we go straight to the SCOTUS or even get there at all. Maybe the military ballot angle gets us into fed court, though. The injury began as soon as the NJSC ruled, so an immediate injunction is in order.

We've got a dish problem at the moment so I don't have Fox News just now - did Napolitano say how we're going to get into the SCOTUS?

Warlady

10-02-2002, 07:49 PM

If he did I missed it. Sorry. You must be having Fox news withdrawals. When will it be fixed?

Venus

10-02-2002, 07:56 PM

When the crane to move the gigantic AC box and equipment that it plopped down on the roof right in front of the dish images/icons/mad.gif comes back to move it to its final resting place, or I get home to the tube, which is well over an hour away. images/icons/frown.gif

RayChuang

10-02-2002, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Warlady:
Venus, did you see Judge Napalotano on Fox just now? He thinks SCOTUS will hear the case and will overturn the decision of the liberal activist NJ Supremes.I think it will be overturned in Federal court, too. The reason is simple: the judges have essentially caused an exact repeat of the Bush v. Gore case from 2000, and the US Supreme Court does not like activist judges causing havoc in the voting process.

Mind you, what do you expect from a state whose politics are almost right out of The Sopranos? graemlins/icon44.gif

ThomasIsUnderrated

10-02-2002, 08:03 PM

I know I'm just being paranoid, but I'd think carefully before pursuing this any further. The ruling makes me furious, but I'd rather lose a battle than lose the war.

Gone_with_the_Wind

10-02-2002, 08:09 PM

The way I see it, the Dems will complain no matter which way the courts decide. As in Florida, they'll complain they're disenfranchised if Lautenberg isn't on the ballot, and again, if they lose the Senate with him on the ballot, they'll be claiming the election was taken back by the Republicans by fraud because Lautenberg didn't have enough time to establish himself.

Take your pick. The Dems whining or the Dems whining.

This is damn ugly.

Maggie_T

10-02-2002, 08:15 PM

Gone, I agree. If the SCOTUS overturns it, as it should, there's going to be no end of wailing from the dems. I can hear it now: "Oh, it's ok for the SCOTUS to judge in favor of Bush, but not in favor of the dems," and bleatings of the sort. They're going to rehash 2000 all over again.

That doesn't mean that I don't want it to happen, you understand. images/icons/tongue.gif

Chris

10-02-2002, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by ThomasIsUnderrated:
I know I'm just being paranoid, but I'd think carefully before pursuing this any further. The ruling makes me furious, but I'd rather lose a battle than lose the war.I don't think you're paranoid. I said earlier today I thought the dems would play this as "reps trying to disenfrancise voters again", and pursuing it will only give them more chances to scream in the national media, thereby effecting other state's races. I think reps should fight it after the election.

Warlady

10-02-2002, 08:28 PM

Well like someone said earlier, the voters can write Lautenberg in if they want. No judge should be allowed to legislate from the bench period. That is what is at stake here.

2nd_Amendment

10-02-2002, 08:53 PM

We have a long history of losing a battle in the hopes of not losing the war. In the process we have retreated so far we don't even remember half of what we were fighting for in the first place.

Fight every battle like it is the last. Fight every battle like the future depends on it. It does. Drag the bastards through the court system and the media. Intimidate them, out spend them, harrass them; both personally and in the spotlight. If we're going to DO anything and I am supposed to believe all you people telling me there is still a difference between the Parties and there is still hope then it's time we DO it.

Warlady

10-02-2002, 08:59 PM

2nd, Republicans are going to appeal the decision.

Westbrook

10-02-2002, 09:01 PM

This is a win-win situation for the democrats and a *BRILLIANT* strategy, probably hatched by their evil genius James Carville.

Here's what they've accomplished. They've finally got an issue in which their party is protagonist and which has dominated the news for the last few days and promises dominate the news for the forseeable future. No matter what the Republicans do, this issue will be news through the election cycle. No matter what the Republicans do, the Dems will be able, with their lapdogs in the mainstream press, to portray it as an effort to disenfranchise the people. Have you heard how National Pagan Radio is playing this? If you haven't, you should. They are the highbrow mouthpiece of the Demogogue Party. No matter what the Republicans do, the Dems will raise this issue in other contests. Mark my words, this will spill over into elections in other states. Actually, it's the only issue they've got right now, but it's playing beautifully in their favor, and it's got legs. Furthermore, this one does not have the promise of backfiring, as all the other "issues" they've raised recently.In all, I see the Republican chances going up in smoke on this one. It's a brilliant strategy, and it's working, and it has the potential to leverage the Democrats into control of both houses.

Get ready for gun control bills, ratification of CEDAW and UNCROTC, slave reparation payments to people who've never worked a day in their lives, and health insurance for AIDs infectees in Africa.

Well, I've read the end of The Book, so I'm not surprised.

Chris

10-02-2002, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Warlady:
Wll like someone said earlier, the voters can write Lautenberg in if they want. No judge should be allowed to legislate from the bench period. That is what is at stake here.I understand, and I know FNC is calling it like it is, but I'm afraid the others networks won't during all this and the dems will muddy nationwide elections with this nonsense again, instead of real issues. It's not only a power grab for the senate, it's a distraction from their inaction in the senate. I still think the reps should pursue it, but do it later by getting the election declared illegal, and recalling Lautenberg if he wins.

Warlady

10-02-2002, 09:05 PM

Westbrook, you need a week in Hawaii or something.

pja

10-02-2002, 09:12 PM

Oh, dear...what is this? Smilies all over the page.

Ummm...I am distracted...

Weren't the dirty Democrat judges on the NJSC the same dirty Democrats who gave big bucks to the Torch(or what ever it is called) before being planted on the NJSC? I thought that required those judges to "recuse"(sp) themselves. You know, not participate in the ruling? How come this hoo haw keeps happening? graemlins/icon125.gif

Dang, we got smilies all over the place!!

Pat (aka pja)

Westbrook

10-02-2002, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Warlady:
Westbrook, you need a week in Hawaii or something.I've been working some really long hours and have an impossible deadline to meet. Maybe that's part of the reason I'm so pessimistic.

But really, Warlady, consider the points I've made. The Republicans need to come up with something *FAST", and it's gotta be better than another SCOTUS showdown. If the Republicans win in the SCOTUS, they lose, because they will be portrayed as "disenfranchising" the voters of New Jersey.

If the Republicans lose in the SCOTUS, they become the "sore Loserman" of the '02 election cycle.

This one is a tough one to beat, and the Republicans had better get George W in on it in a hurry. I believe that he's the *ONLY* one in their party with the backbone and insight to turn this one around.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-02-2002, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Westbrook:
I predict that Lautengburg will win the New Jersey Senate election.
I hope that I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.I predict that if Lautenburg wins he will resign within 6 to 12 months and be replaced with an appointee.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-02-2002, 09:37 PM

HOT DAMN another new word "Demofascist" who says you can't learn a new language on this board.

Large_Al

10-02-2002, 09:38 PM

Westbrook you are depressing the S#%t out of me.

I'm going to take a 1/2 day tomorrow and going down to Trenton and protest.

The way I look at it we need to fight this all the way. It's a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of law and lawlessness.
I'm sick and tired of this and I ain't going to take it anymore. graemlins/icon124.gif

**DONOTDELETE**

10-02-2002, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Venus:
Tac, I don't think SCOTUS will hear it, and I don't see a hook to get in there. I'm sure con lawyers are working on it, and I hope I'm wrong.

But, an appeal to fed district court, with an application for an injunction should be doable, IMHO. In any case, one normally doesn't appeal a state court decision (even from a state supreme court) directly to the SCOTUS.

West, I think you're overly-pessimistic, and that's comin' from another pessimist.

Oracle, thanks for getting the story and the decision up so quickly.Can I be a Pessimist too. My faith in the importance of our laws, state and federal is beginning to wain very badly. Hard to accept by someone who's life has been devoted to law enforcement. So now I will just be "Big John the Pessimist" and that ain't lie and it ain't whining. So there.

TheKellyCrew

10-02-2002, 09:48 PM

Quick....raise your hand if you're surprised!!!

Ta hell with the LAW

HarvickFan29

10-02-2002, 09:48 PM

I know this sounds awfully simple but how is that the GOP keeps getting blamed for the corruption of the dem party?

Al, wish I could be right there with you tomorrow!

DesertFox

10-02-2002, 09:49 PM

I'm just amazed we haven't been blamed for Monica.

HarvickFan29

10-02-2002, 09:57 PM

Fox, I must have missed something because I thought we were blamed for Monica. I just want to know why it keeps happening.

Westbrook

10-02-2002, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by HarvickFan29:
I know this sounds awfully simple but how is that the GOP keeps getting blamed for the corruption of the dem party?It's called "spin".

The Evil Geniuses of the DemoDemon party spend all their time thinking up new spin, and their hunchbacked assistants in the press drone the talking points endlessly. <ul type="square"> It didn't work on the Saddam thing. it didn't appear to work on the "economy".[/list]So they had to INVENT an issue that they could exploit.
And this one appears to be working beautifully.

HarvickFan29

10-02-2002, 09:59 PM

No, no West. I want the real answer.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-02-2002, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Maggie T:
Gone, I agree. If the SCOTUS overturns it, as it should, there's going to be no end of wailing from the dems. I can hear it now: "Oh, it's ok for the SCOTUS to judge in favor of Bush, but not in favor of the dems," and bleatings of the sort. They're going to rehash 2000 all over again.

That doesn't mean that I don't want it to happen, you understand. images/icons/tongue.gif Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Maggie does that mean that there will be no end to the whining and wailing by the Radical Republicans until and if the ruling is overturned. Actually what happened I thing is wrong but so is condeming half of our society many of whom had nothing to do with the decision. We don't even know that the majority of the Democrats in New Jersey wanted the ruling.

I had better quit for now before I get slammed, but I will never give up hoping that our society will return to having respect for each other.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-02-2002, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Westbrook:
This is a win-win situation for the democrats and a *BRILLIANT* strategy, probably hatched by their evil genius James Carville.

Here's what they've accomplished. They've finally got an issue in which their party is protagonist and which has dominated the news for the last few days and promises dominate the news for the forseeable future. No matter what the Republicans do, this issue will be news through the election cycle. No matter what the Republicans do, the Dems will be able, with their lapdogs in the mainstream press, to portray it as an effort to disenfranchise the people. Have you heard how National Pagan Radio is playing this? If you haven't, you should. They are the highbrow mouthpiece of the Demogogue Party. No matter what the Republicans do, the Dems will raise this issue in other contests. Mark my words, this will spill over into elections in other states. Actually, it's the only issue they've got right now, but it's playing beautifully in their favor, and it's got legs. Furthermore, this one does not have the promise of backfiring, as all the other "issues" they've raised recently.In all, I see the Republican chances going up in smoke on this one. It's a brilliant strategy, and it's working, and it has the potential to leverage the Democrats into control of both houses.

Get ready for gun control bills, ratification of CEDAW and UNCROTC, slave reparation payments to people who've never worked a day in their lives, and health insurance for AIDs infectees in Africa.

Well, I've read the end of The Book, so I'm not surprised.I hope you are wrong about both houses but I am glad to know that even under the adverse conditions as laid out here that you are not restricting yourself to "Tunnel Vision". By being totally informed a person can more intelligently reach or accept a decision. Totally biased will lose.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-02-2002, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by TheKellyCrew:
Quick....raise your hand if you're surprised!!!

Ta hell with the LAWI believe that is the motto of the Democrats.

Westbrook

10-02-2002, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by HarvickFan29:
No, no West. I want the real answer.The reason the majority of the people in this country belive so much of what the Democrats accuse the Republicans of and blame them for is because the majority of the people in this country are 
IGNORANT!
STUPID!
LAZY!
AIMLESS!
FAITHLESS!
UNGODLY!
AND PROUD OF IT!

And they believe every crumb that falls from the lips of the talking heads to be gospel truth, and the people gifted with a higher IQ, albeit ignorant and without understanding, believe all the phony-British-accented drool spewed at them from the Highbrow commie wannabe networks such as National Pagan Radio, National Pagan Television, Pagan Broadcasting System, etc...

images/icons/mad.gif
images/icons/mad.gif
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

/RantOff

Warlady

10-03-2002, 12:03 AM

Westbrook, you really are depressing. The GOP is the party of principles and the rule of law. We were right about impeaching Bill Clinton, we were right in fighting Algore and we are right in fighting this decision. Legislating from the bench should NEVER be tolerated. The only voters in NJ who are being disenfranchised are the military absentee voters. The voters in NJ can write in any name they choose including Lautenberg. I will be glad when this election is over so you will cheer up. I don't believe the elections are going to turn out as you predict. We will see.

SunnyBrook

10-03-2002, 12:52 AM

WestBrook:

I've read the end of the book too, but remember, we don't know the day or the hour. Maybe the fullness of time has not yet been accomplished. Perhaps we will experience mercy and awakening before the wrath.

Prayer should trump pessimism.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-03-2002, 12:54 AM

If we believe a particular party is a party of principle, then the next thing you know, we will be believing that a particular party can be trusted with big government, and where will that get us?

HarvickFan29

10-03-2002, 01:22 AM

The voters in NJ can write in any name they choose including Lautenberg.

I seriously doubt they can spell the guy's name! images/icons/tongue.gif images/icons/grin.gif

lurkingguest

10-03-2002, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Westbrook:
IGNORANT!
STUPID!
LAZY!
AIMLESS!
FAITHLESS!
UNGODLY
AND PROUD OF IT!
I must agree, I have noticed this for years.

I believe this because of:

1. The dem re-education system in our schools,
2. The perpetual pro dem/liberal propaganda in the media,
3. The inability of the Republican party to counter the above,
and
4. The inability of the Republican party to fight back when falsely accused or otherwise lied about.

And because of the above, the wealth redistributing/vote buying with our tax dollar, the touchy feely/don't hurt anyones feelings/don't kill any animals/America is at fault society they are creating will likely keep them in power for years. Oh, and I forgot, rule breaking is OK as long as it is the "right thing to do".

Won't be long before they have brainwashed enough of the population for a successful gun grab and make us all feel guilty enough to make reparations a reality.

Etaoin

10-03-2002, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Westbrook:

That's the end of the Bush agenda.Don't you mean that it would be the end of any chance for a conservative agenda or any curtailment of the democRAT's agenda?

It also would mean that Bush 43 will also be a one termer. The war will not save him and the economy will sink him (even though it ain't his fault).