Take your marbles and go home, if you can't win

A Desert Rose

Simply Charming Elsewhere
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Posts
13,997
From FoxNews.

WASHINGTON — Democrats asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to allow former Sen. Frank Lautenberg's name to be swapped in for Sen Robert Torricelli on the ballot in New Jersey's November Senate election.


Torricelli unexpectedly withdrew from the race on Monday.

Republicans filed an appeal to the high court Thursday seeking a stay after New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday evening that the state Democratic Party can change its Senate candidate.

The suit was filed with Justice David Souter, who handles appeals from New Jersey.

There was no immediate word whether the justices would block the lower court ruling or agree to hear the Republicans' broader constitutional complaints.

Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bill Frist, R-Tenn., delivered the papers personally to the court. The suit argues that the state Supreme Court erred when it ruled 7-0 that election law should be broadly interpreted to "allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice."

"It is clear that the New Jersey Supreme Court overstepped their authority, overriding the will of the people," Frist said after delivering the paperwork. "The change and switch on the ballot is illegal."

Election law states that candidates can not be swapped out within 51 days of an election. The Republicans argue that election dates written into the law are up to the states to decide, not for courts to arbitrarily alter.



AP
Former Sen. Frank Lautenberg
The GOP argues that absentee, military voters who have already sent ballots back will be disenfranchised by the change of candidate.

A separate lawsuit would be filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of overseas military personnel who have requested absentee ballots.

"Federal law requires they should already have gone out," said GOP attorney Alex Vogel.

California's secretary of state plans to file a friend-of-the-court brief on the issue Friday, said Beth Miller, a spokeswoman for Republican Bill Jones. He is "very concerned about the potential precedence it could set in terms of federal elections in California," she said.

Democratic Sen. Robert Torricelli dropped out of his re-election race on Monday after ethics violations hounded him throughout the summer. Falling far behind Republican candidate Doug Forrester, Torricelli said he did not want to be responsible for the loss of the one-seat Democratic Senate majority.

Democrats scrambled to find a replacement and selected 78-year-old retired Sen. Frank Lautenberg on Tuesday night to take Torricelli's place.

Thirteen of 21 counties had already printed out ballots when Torricelli withdrew from the race. Five had already sent out the ballots, and one had received responses.

State Attorney General David Samsun and county clerks testified before the state Supreme Court that if expense were not an issue, then they could reprint and mail out ballots in time for the Nov. 5 election, now 33 days away. On Friday, the Mercer County court ordered the Democrats to pay the courts $800,000 to cover initial costs of reprinting and miling out new ballots.



AP
Robert Torricelli
Republicans recognize that the Supreme Court gambit is a long shot, but if nothing else, the headlines are worth it. The political payoff is worth the challenge. It also keeps their candidate Forrester, who led Torricelli by 14 points in the last poll taken, in the headlines.

The GOP also recognizes that they will probably need to schedule a debate between Forrester and Lautenberg.

Lautenberg, who retired in 2000 after three terms in the Senate, met Thursday with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who along with state Democrats filed quickly behind Lautenberg.

On Wednesday night, more than 300 union members crammed into the Trenton War Memorial to cheer Lautenberg, who was greeted by a lively crowd with cheers of "We Want Frank."

"Thank you very much," Lautenberg said. "Frank wants you!"

Lautenberg must surmount a monetary challenge. One month's campaign could end up costing $4 million dollars. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee won't say how much they expect to spend, but say the race could cost several million dollars.

At the end of June, Torricelli had $6 million. He has expenses and legal bills to pay, but he could end up giving some or all of the remainder to a party committee for "issue-advocacy" advertisements on behalf of Lautenberg.

Torricelli could also refund the money to donors and suggest they contribute to his successor, create his own political action committee or donate the money to charity.

Torricelli and Lautenberg have a long history of animosity, but Thursday, in his first appearance on the Senate floor since he announced his withdrawal, he said he would do "everything I can to get Frank Lautenberg elected" and was exploring ways of making his remaining campaign funds available.

Asked whether his commitment included a willingness to resign -- a step that would permit Gov. James McGreevey to appoint Lautenberg to the seat -- Torricelli bristled. "You're irresponsible," he replied.


This is so illegal. But then it is New Jersey....
 
Why would the Democrats turn on Torrecelli AFTER he fell in the polls?

The Democrats in the Senate managed to get him better treatment than poor old Trafficant. They knew everything about the man and backed him, ala Clinton, as long as he was winning. When will they learn? Marion Barry. They should have hung him out to dry and REASSURED HIS ELECTION CHANCES!

Rush Limbaugh always stresses that Liberals rely on courts to do what they cannot achieve at the ballot box. This in no measure goes towards proving him wrong. The great thing is, that in typical Democrat fashion, they are going to cry foul as loud as possible and point at the Republicans... THERE THEY GO AGAIN. LOOKING FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO PUT THEM IN POWER! WE HAVE TO DEFEAT THEM AT ANY COST NO MATTER WHAT THE LIE, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FICTION, NO MATTER HOW SLIMEY THE GUY/GAL RUNNING BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET MORE OF OUR OWN JUDGES IN WHO WILL DO WHAT WE WANT LIKE IN FLORIDA AND JERSEY...

And they will say, what are they afraid of? LOOSING, HMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!

:D
 
Sounds like the Reps are bad sports to me. But then, winning at the courts when they can't win the vote is becoming a past time for them.

Did you know that Ashcroft lost to a dead guy in Missouri?
 
Yes and the DEMs are running a dead woman in Hawaii. The DEMs and dead people have a long-involved history both as voters and candidates... :D

The widow Carnahan and friends counted on Ashcroft doing the decent thing and not campaigning against her (also wary of the backlash of going after a new widow) causing his demise. Ironically he got moved to a position of worse power for the DEMs.

Ironically, too, there you go. Dems go to court first. Republicans bad sports. That's just what I said Democrats would do.
 
SINthysist said:
Yes and the DEMs are running a dead woman in Hawaii. The DEMs and dead people have a long-involved history both as voters and candidates... :D

The widow Carnahan and friends counted on Ashcroft doing the decent thing and not campaigning against her (also wary of the backlash of going after a new widow) causing his demise. Ironically he got moved to a position of worse power for the DEMs.

Ironically, too, there you go. Dems go to court first. Republicans bad sports. That's just what I said Democrats would do.

Remember Sonny Bono?
 
SINthysist said:


Ironically, too, there you go. Dems go to court first. Republicans bad sports. That's just what I said Democrats would do.

But the shame of it is, the true disgusting part is what the courts have done in New Jersey. Who can you count on to do the right thing? No longer our courts, indeed.
 
No, the disgusting thing is, given ALL the evidence, Mary Jo White saw nothing she that could prosecute HIM on. But, then, if she did, she has the same goods on Hillary and would be forced to go forward with that prosecution too...

The Democratic Party has become a corrupt institution and it is time America stopped enabling it.

For example, the Buddhist Temple, no legal controlling authority, we did nothing improper... that's the line the press took. When fined, i.e., found guilty recently, the press DID NOT CARE THAT CLINTON/GORE WERE GUILTY OF WHAT THEY HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH during the days of the vast right-wing conspiracy... So it's not just the courts, not just the press, not just big business, not just the political parties, but we, The American People, have allowed ourselve to be corrupt by not holding ourselves to standards, and even worse, not holding others to standards.

And when there are no standards. Any standard will do.

When will WE, for instance, stop electing at least the KNOWN criminals...

:rolleyes:
 
Sandia said:
Sounds like the Reps are bad sports to me. But then, winning at the courts when they can't win the vote is becoming a past time for them.

Did you know that Ashcroft lost to a dead guy in Missouri?

Yes, I would expect this kind of response from you.

1. New Jersey law states that any name on the ballot MUST withdraw before the 51st day before the election for a new candidate to stand in. Lautenburgs entry is illegal. But the law doesn't mean shit to Democrats. Doesn't seem that it ever did. Lame, spineless, arrogant fucks that they are. Hasn't been a pricipled Democrat since Carter it seems.

2. The ballots have already been printed and many of the absentee ballots have already been mailed. These people are now disenfranchised. Each county will have to print new ballots.

3. There is nothing wrong with Torrecelli. He's not dead (except politically), nor stricken with a grave illness, nor is there great events within his immediate family. He quit. Why? Well, because he was loosing. So, regardless of the law, we should just poll the candidates. If it looks like we're loosing, why just run in another and poll again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

4. Standing up for the enforcement of the laws on the books is not "spoil sportsmanship". It is absolutely the correct thing to do and should be demanded by all those that believe in the rule of law.

I hope the Supreme Court acts quickly enough to prevent this corruption of the process to take place.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:


3. There is nothing wrong with Torrecelli. He's not dead (except politically), nor stricken with a grave illness, nor is there great events within his immediate family. He quit. Why? Well, because he was loosing. So, regardless of the law, we should just poll the candidates. If it looks like we're loosing, why just run in another and poll again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

Ishmael

Yes, something is wrong with him. He discovered he was losing. LMAO.

The Dems are crooked.
 
Has anyone checked into the betting line on the Torch living out the weekend?

He's not the only one who knows goons...
 
On thread after thread discussing the issues, I don't see the liberals and Dems sticking around to fight for their cause.

They are demoralized.

The honest Democrats are waking up to what the socialists are using them for...
 
SINthysist said:
On thread after thread discussing the issues, I don't see the liberals and Dems sticking around to fight for their cause.

They are demoralized.

The honest Democrats are waking up to what the socialists are using them for...

They've lost their moral compass bro.

Gingrich and Livingstone had affairs. OK, the Dem's screamed "See, see haha." And those men resigned their positions of high power. While their personal actions are not to be condoned, they did behave in an ethical manner with regard to the electorate. Contrasted to, oh say, Gary Condit and Bill Clinton, who kicked and screamed and rationalized (and out and out lied).

Now we have a situation where a candidate quit. No reason other than he's loosing. So, why should the law be an obstacle to running in a 'ringer'? Why, no obstacle at all.

It reminds me soooooooooo much of "Animal Farm" that it isn't even amusing anymore.

Ishmael
 
Yeah, he wouldn't quit because he was a criminal. It had to be because he was loosing. That says it all in a nutshell.

You'd think the good Dems would at least speak up against the criminals in their party as not to be tarnished but they keep accepting them for who they are. I'm sorry, but who, in their right mind would vote for a party with a mindset like that? That just begs for a meglomaniac to come in and try to run everything himself...

What the fawk am I talking about...

Bill and Hill still run the party, even though they lost in '99.

Is that what has the DEMs so down about their chances?
 
Hey, Rose!

I was wondering when someone would start a thread on this subject. As someone whose attitude toward the two major U.S. parties is "A plague on both their houses!", I have a unique perspective. What the Democrats are doing here is pretty sleazy. However, the Republicans don't come off any better. After constantly accusing the Dems of using the courts to circumvent democracy, their going to the U.S. Supreme Court, packed with right-wing Republicans, to prevent the voters of New Jersey from even having a choice is totally hypocritical.
 
Re: Hey, Rose!

REDWAVE said:
I was wondering when someone would start a thread on this subject. As someone whose attitude toward the two major U.S. parties is "A plague on both their houses!", I have a unique perspective. What the Democrats are doing here is pretty sleazy. However, the Republicans don't come off any better. After constantly accusing the Dems of using the courts to circumvent democracy, their going to the U.S. Supreme Court, packed with right-wing Republicans, to prevent the voters of New Jersey from even having a choice is totally hypocritical.

You are so full of shit.

There is only one person that is at fault here. Robert Torricelli. He and he alone is responsible. To castigate any party for demanding that the laws be upheld is bullshit. Quite frankly, if the party positions were reversed, I would side with the Democrats.

The fact that you think that the law is as permeable as the NJ court does tells my volumes about you, and them.

Ishmael
 
Re: Re: Hey, Rose!

Ishmael said:


You are so full of shit.

Ishmael

Now THIS is entertainment! My reason for coming here to begin with. I LOVE it.

Hi REDWAVE! backatcha..... I bought new shoes. Made by native Americans. What do you think of that? ~smiling~

Here I am hijacking my own thread LMAO.
 
I used to side with the Dems and I'm still doing penance and damnit Nixon was the last 'publican I voted for 'cept Bob Dole, A HELL OF AN AMERICAN...
 
No. Libertarian Candidates first.
Republicans second.
Write my name third.
Spoil ballot fourth...

:D

Where's Laurel "Babs" Streisand whenever we discuss Democratic corruption or is she still out hunting missing "W's?"
 
Hey there ADR and bro. Have you noticed that the usual cast of characters are missing?

I wonder if that's because they're ashamed and don't have the guts to say so?

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
Hey there ADR and bro. Have you noticed that the usual cast of characters are missing?

I wonder if that's because they're ashamed and don't have the guts to say so?

Ishmael

I have my couple of billboard chart toppers right here.... You and SIN. I need no one else to keep my company. ~smiling~

Like minded people seem to seek each other out fairly quickly.

However, RED does have a few fires going on this board it appears so he may not pay as much attention to this thread as the others.
 
Back
Top