please send some sanity out this way...
or judges that dont change laws whenever its convenient
please send some sanity out this way...
or judges that dont change laws whenever its convenient
Faster than a bullet from a gun
He is faster than everyone
Quicker than the blinking of an eye
Like a flash you could miss him going by
No one knows quite how he does it but it's true they say
He's the master of going faster. -George Harrison
Care to elaborate? I have no idea what you're referring to.
However it does sound just like how the federal government is working right now.
"Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate."
2012 Indianapolis 500 Photo Gallery
2011 Indianapolis 500 photo gallery
NJ Senator Torricelli is running for re-election. Hes getting slammed in the polls cuz of ethics problems. He realizes hes not gonna get re-elected so he drops out 35 days before election. Party big-wigs insert new guy in his place. Only problem is election laws say no candidate changes if theres less than 50 days until election.
NJ Supreme Court says "Dont worry about the law We'll make a new one for you."
Bet y'all though The Sopranos was fiction
The New Jersey Supreme Court had to decide between two not so good choices.
They could decide to stick to the letter of one election law which would eliminate any choice for NJ voters for the senate race.
They could hedge on that one law in favor of allowing the people of NJ to have a choice for the senate.
One side wants to eliminate the opportunity for the voters to have a choice and lock in their man. The other side wants to pull a shady deal when they knew they were losing to have a second chance.
Neither side has the high ground in this situation.
The voters DO have a choice.
A Democrat (who is a crook and gave up but is still on the ticket)
A Republican
A Libertarian
A Socialist
A Green
An Independent
So what yer saying the Voters Should have a choice that includes a Democrat that has a better chance of winning than the original
candidate who dropped out cuz he was getting creamed in the polls.
According to the NJ Supreme Court the choice MUST inlcude a Democrat that can win. Please explain.
Also absentee ballots have been sent out and some have already been completed and returned. Since some have already cast their vote, doesnt this mean the election has already started?? Please explain.
If some 3rd world dictator was changing election rules like this, I guarantee the UN would have monitors there in less than 24 hours.
I believe you're confused about what I actually said. "BOTH" sides are trying to work the system to their advantage. "BOTH" sides don't give a sheet about the NJ voters. "BOTH" sides only want their man to win an election regardles of the method.Originally posted by KevMcNJ:
<STRONG>The voters DO have a choice.
A Democrat (who is a crook and gave up but is still on the ticket)
A Republican
A Libertarian
A Socialist
A Green
An Independent
So what yer saying the Voters Should have a choice that includes a Democrat that has a better chance of winning than the original
candidate who dropped out cuz he was getting creamed in the polls.
According to the NJ Supreme Court the choice MUST inlcude a Democrat that can win. Please explain.
Also absentee ballots have been sent out and some have already been completed and returned. Since some have already cast their vote, doesnt this mean the election has already started?? Please explain.
If some 3rd world dictator was changing election rules like this, I guarantee the UN would have monitors there in less than 24 hours.</STRONG>
You're upset because you're a staunch Repub. Staunch Dems are cheering. The NJ voters are the losers.
Man, Kev, that does suck. I agree with you on your assessment. Democrat and Republican are NOT the only choices. I'd like to see him not be replaced and see how the other party's pick up the slack.
I can understand why Republicans don't want the people of New Jersey to have a choice other than their guy... what with their guy's stand on the issues that's their best hope for victory.
And since when has republican's had a problem with the courts stepping in and deciding elections... the Florida State surpreme court only asked that the votes be counted (obviously another thing Republicans don't want to see) Whereas the federal Surpreme Court picked a winner... right down party lines... heh,
I guess that's why the Republican's are taking this there now... so it's not that it's the courts are stepping in that bothers them it's which court is tstepping in.
Just remember the NJ court ruling was unanimous with both republicans and democrats ruling in favor of NJ voters.
People may like to make this out into a Fascist vs. Communis... er, sorry, Republican vs Democrat argument, but it is a VERY SERIOUS issue.
And one questionable decision in the past is NOT a reason to justify another. This is our Constituion we're talkinga bout - something FAR more important than most people realize. Besides, would it not have been an even bigger travesty if they just kept recounting until the results suited Gore? Face it - Bush stole the election fairly and squarely!
The people of the U.S. would have been up in arms over the way the U.S. Supreme Court ignored the Constitution except the choice for president was between dumb and dumber. The reason the election was so close in the first place was the voters had trouble deciding which one was "dumber". The most paltry selection of presidential canidates I have ever seen in my voting life.Originally posted by MichaelP:
<STRONG>People may like to make this out into a Fascist vs. Communis... er, sorry, Republican vs Democrat argument, but it is a VERY SERIOUS issue.
And one questionable decision in the past is NOT a reason to justify another. This is our Constituion we're talkinga bout - something FAR more important than most people realize. Besides, would it not have been an even bigger travesty if they just kept recounting until the results suited Gore? Face it - Bush stole the election fairly and squarely!</STRONG>
Did Gore EVER have more votes in Florida? No.
It was close; very close. But Bush always had more votes in every recount. IIRC the Fla SC wanted them to start counting ballots that had any discernible mark. But ONLY in a few heavily Democratic counties. How can that be fair? Ironically I voted for Harry Brown cuz I knew Al Bore was gonna take Nj by a large margin so I voted 3rd Party in Y2K.
I don't know who had the most votes in Florida and moreover, I don't really care who had the most votes in Florida.Originally posted by KevMcNJ:
<STRONG>Did Gore EVER have more votes in Florida? No.
It was close; very close. But Bush always had more votes in every recount. IIRC the Fla SC wanted them to start counting ballots that had any discernible mark. But ONLY in a few heavily Democratic counties. How can that be fair? Ironically I voted for Harry Brown cuz I knew Al Bore was gonna take Nj by a large margin so I voted 3rd Party in Y2K.</STRONG>
What I do care about is the Constitution and the way the SC ignored it. The Cons says the method of electing the president is "different" than any other election. The legislatures of the various states will determine the exact method of selecting presidential electors. The legislature of Fla set up, as do all states, a popular vote to select the electors. They also passed a law that says "ALL ELECTION DISPUTES" will be resolved by the state supreme court.
The U.S. SC ignored the Florida legislature and thereby the constitution. They took it on themselves to select the president who just so happened to be of the same political party as the majority.
vegas, I guess it doesn't matter that the major decision was 7-2 and that the two Democratic judges were part of the 7?
However, when I saw this, I made up my mind before I knew which party the quitter belonged to. They should not be allowed to flaunt the rules like that, no matter what party they belong to. The voters have a choice between other candidates. If the Supreme Court says the election is only fair if there is a Republican and Democrat on the ballot, they are ruling (based on their own opinion rather than the law) that other parties do not constitute viable choices for voters.
Just BTW, I've always wondered why many more people seem to lament the lack of sucess by 3rd parties than to vote for 3rd parties.
If you really want voters to have a choice, petition for "none of the above" to be an option on ballots.
-StatMan
Trying to spell hors d'oeuvres
Gets upon my hors n'oeuvres
BTW the US Supreme Court is NOT gonna hear arguments on this. Todays poll shows new guy with 2-4% lead in polls. Margin of error means they are basically tied. Of course as soon as the lead drops they might just resuurrect FDR and have him run. I think Woodrow Wilson is buried in NJ maybe they can recruit him next.
Ouch! that must really bite when this surpreme court won't take on something being pushed by the republican party...
And to add insult to injury the voters get to look at the issues to decide this one.
Maybe your guy would be in front if it weren't for all the bloated over reaching and going to court to limit voter choice... or that the republican's were allowed to do this in the 50's
BTW who do you blame this one on?
I'd say a Senator taking illegal bribes is an issue for the voters to consider.
Citizens not politicians decide whats an issue.
On a lighter note Im dying to see what happens this Election day. Better than any stupid World Series.
Like I said if it wasn't for the bloated over reaching...
Ditto, cept I voted for him because I could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Gore. If people voted for who they really wanted instead of voting AGAINST the guy they think might win, the election results would be quite different. Granted, it'd still be Communist vs. Fascist, but the little guys like the Greens and Libertarians would at least show up on the radar.Originally posted by KevMcNJ:
<STRONG> I voted for Harry Brown cuz I knew Al Bore was gonna take Nj by a large margin so I voted 3rd Party in Y2K.</STRONG>
If the law states that there are to be no changes within 50 days of the election, then there should be no issue to debate...
What was the legal basis of NJ SC overrulling this? "Giving voters more choices" is not a valid legal argument.
I guess if you live in New Jersey (get a rope) you get what you deserve....
[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: TxIndyFan ]
If you do what you've always done...
you'll get what you've always gotten.
QUOTE]Originally posted by TxIndyFan:
<STRONG> What was the legal basis of NJ SC overruling this? </STRONG>[/QUOTE]
The New Jersey statute says two things:
1) It states that "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, . . . a candidate shall be selected" by the state party leadership.
2) Second, it says that "a selection made pursuant to this section shall be made no later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election."
Correctly, Republicans argued that both the timelines of the statute were violated . The court rejected that reading, however,
holding that the statute did not foreclose (did not mention or disallow) reprinting the ballots, as the Democrats wanted, with Lautenberg's name. This is an interpretation usually reserved for deaths or some so-called "extraordinary" events.
The reasoning of the unanimous (7-0) court (shared in their opinion) is that the timeline is pretty arbitrary - the legislative reasoning for the number of days is to have enough time to print the ballots accurately. Electoral choice, while not a strong statutory/legal argument, was used by the court to interpret the law. In essence, the court said voters should be presented with as much accurate choice as possible. "The court should invoke its equitable powers in favor of a full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey," Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz
This court chose to read and interpret the statute very broadly - something courts can and will do. Courts make laws and interpret laws all the time. That is why it is VERY important to be aware of who are the judges in your area and in the US Supreme Ct.
The last blow was the refusal of the US Supreme Ct to hear the case. Done deal - NJ Supreme Ct ruling stands.
Next step: I imagine the NJ legislature will address this as soon as they have a chance and make sure to write a clearer statute. BUT, other states can use NJ's ruling as persuasive authority and possible go the same way. On the same token, other states may check their statute to see if they have a "drop out/replace candidate" provision.
After Bush v Gore, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Courts will impact an election process.
cya
Racing is a "chick thing!" :D
Thank you very much, Ms. lvracing, esq.
latest poll sez they are dead even but pollsters expect larger Repub turnout this year because they are "energized" by SC ruling.
Beats following the World Series.
Better go back and recheck that count. It was 5-4, right down party lines.Originally posted by StatMan:
<STRONG>vegas, I guess it doesn't matter that the major decision was 7-2 and that the two Democratic judges were part of the 7?
-StatMan</STRONG>
Vegasmon, you're right and I didn't know what he was talking about cause the FSC in 2000 was 5-4 right down party lines as you said but the NJSC was unanimous.
Reality isn't very often the way that it is portrayed by Rush.
The decision was 5-4. Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer dissented.Originally posted by vegasduo:
<STRONG>
Better go back and recheck that count. It was 5-4, right down party lines.</STRONG>
The number 7-2 is thrown around a lot though because Souter and Breyer only dissented in part.
Souter and Breyer agreed with the majority that there are constitutional problems with the recount that was order by the Fl Supreme Ct. but their remedy/solution for that was differnt.
There were three decisions. One was 9-0, one was 7-2, one was 5-4.Originally posted by vegasduo:
<STRONG>Better go back and recheck that count. It was 5-4, right down party lines.</STRONG>
That's not the job of courts. Their job is to rule according to the law, not to determine if the law was made by a logical formula or an arbitrary compromise. If the law violates the NJ Consitution, or is in direct conflict with another NJ law, that's one thing. "The date chosen was arbitrary" is not good enough. But, that's the way things are in that country I guess.The reasoning of the unanimous (7-0) court (shared in their opinion) is that the timeline is pretty arbitrary
The reason behind the law was the time they figured they needed to make new ballots at the time the law was passed. Apparently the Court feels that they are allowed to adjust to the times since they must believe that the Democracy is more important than some out of date timing on their ability to change and reprint ballots.
Or at least their ability to adapt to the times out wieghed the Republicans to take advantage of some out of date technicality.
Election rules on the books are now an "out of date technicality"? Thats scary.
It's not the election rules that are arbitrary. In responding to the Republican argument about the dates for changing candidates, the court addressed it by saying the dates whether they be 51 or 20 are a bit arbitrary now. The reasoning behind them, time for the ballots, is a bit out of date now.Originally posted by KevMcNJ:
<STRONG>Election rules on the books are now an "out of date technicality"? That’s scary.</STRONG>
The holding was focused on another aspect of the law. The statute did not mention reprinting the ballots. It only addressed the dates. Using that loophole, the judges said "well, the legislative arm of NJ didn't give us guidance in this area so we'll go ahead and allow the change for these reasons... (see above posting).
I respectfully disagree. The law looks at the legislative intent all the time to determine what the law says. The "law" as it's written in statutes is not always clear so additional info is always needed.Originally posted by StatMan:
<STRONG>That's not the job of courts. Their job is to rule according to the law, not to determine if the law was made by a logical formula or an arbitrary compromise. </STRONG>
Furthermore, the court did not violate the law. They allowed something that the law in NJ does not address fully - altering the ballot. Judge-made law happens all the time. It's called the common law.
What to see that this doesn't happen again? Make sure your representative is looking into the election laws of your state checking that they cover this type of situation and address it clearly so judges do have a clear law to follow.
The Supreme Ct, while not "agreeing" per se, definitely gave a nod to the NJ Supreme Court and their ruling when they decided not to hear the case.
Fun stuff!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks