Forrester Statement On New Jersey Supreme Court Decision

Forrester 2002 | 10/2/2002 | Forrester 2002

[Black Agnes]

Christie Witless Sucked. (RINOS managed to grow the state budget during Witless/Donny-D's terms more than the dims ever *dreamed* of.)

[Political Junkie Too]

If, if, if. That's not the point. That's blaming Forrester for what happened. He ran a campaign a certain way because he thought he was running against a specific candidate. The people of New Jersey agreed with him.

-PJ

[#3Fan]

The SCOTUS won't touch this with a 10-foot-pole. Bank that. Frank will be on the ballot on 11/5.

So we don't even try? Isn't it worth a try?

Democrats have no regard for the rule of law and they stack courts with judges that have no regard for the rule of law. If conservatives never challenge these Dems when they break the law, we'll never get off the ground. I know you think it's beneath conservatives to actually challenge the Dem lawbreakers in court, but sometimes you have to go down to the level of your enemy to defeat your enemy. The people aren't paying enough attention to reward us for fair play so we have to fight these Dems on more than just the public opinion level.

[Ziva]

If the State of NJ is being reimbursed $800,000 for money already spent on the election, then Forrester should also be reimbursed the millions he has spent on his campaign against the criminal Senator.

[glaseatr]

Not bad. But six of the judges were appointed by a Republican.

I wouldn't call Whitmann anything more than a RENO.

[jwalsh07]

Is Forrester really so bad that the only candidate he can beat is a proven cheater? I mean, geez, I hate the SCONJ's ruling too, and it's sad, but if Forrester had an ounce of worth it seems he should be up to taking on all comers...right?

I, for one, am sick of the rats breaking the freaking law and I want these bastards smacked down in the courts as well as at the ballot box.

Sad to say, however, the former is much more likely than the latter in that cesspool of corruption.

[Torie]

The Torricelli—Lautenberg machine

That is a mouthful and over the top and inane. Forrester would have been better off to say the Torricelli-Lautenberg wing of the Democrat party, or just Torricelli and Lautenberg. It is odd to characterize as a "machine" as mechanism whose disparate parts would commit homicide against one another if they could get away with it.

[glaseatr]

RENO = Ugly Dyke

[Scott from the Left Coast]

There is no question that this entire fix, right up to lining the NJ "Supreme" court up in advance was orchestrated by Clinton and his machine.

I remember an anecdote where, during a cabinet meeting, a Clinton cabinet member protested a course of action that was highly unethical and most likely illegal, and Clinton shouted her down by saying that if people in 1960 operated the way she wanted that Jack Kennedy would never have been elected, "and your telling me that the law or ethics were more important than beating Richard Nixon."

Clintonism is winning at all costs, it is Hitlerism with a smiley face.

[#3Fan]

For the time being. Congress should make it a federal offense to tamper with a federal election from the bench. A case like that would probably go to the US Supreme Court, but it would shine spotlight on this gross judicial impropriety.

For once I agree with you. These Dems need to be taken to task for their crimes. Ridiculing them isn't working, they keep getting more and more corrupt every year. They're going to cause a civil war in this country if we don't start holding them accountable.

[Miss Marple]

I think Forrester can beat Lautenberg. He has better ideas and is more articulate.

However, this is not fair to Forrester in that his whole campaign was predicated on the Torch being his opponent. Now he has to scrap ads, commission new ones, and change his strategy.

I doubt that Torricelli would have been happy if we had scrapped Forrester at this late date and replaced him with Bruce Willis.

[PubliusRevisited]

Tom Paine would have had more fight in him than Sam. The Republican IS taking the Dems on at their own game--they went to court and he's sticking with that battle to ensure due process of law. What a terrible precedent the court is setting--it's not one that can be allowed to stand. It is simply not consistent with the rule of law. He is also fighting for the people of New Jersey's right under the U.S. Constitution to a republican form of government.

[Trust but Verify]

It's worth a try, and Forrester is going to try, but it would be a mistake to lay down and wait for a court to tell you what to do next. The course of action Forrester has chosen is by far the best he can do under the circumstances. I think he has a good chance of winning this thing if he starts hammering away at the Rats immediately.

I also hope that those conservatives who have stated they will not vote for their Republican candidate because they aren't conservative enough will reconsider.

[alancarp]

Ready for a New Jersey bumper sticker?

FRANKLY, DEMOCRATS JUST
IGNORE THE LA[W]TENBERG

[kayak]

How about shortening it to Torch-Loserberg?

[laconic]

Forrester hasn't lost yet. He has four things in his favor: 1) the stench of the Torricelli matter and the obvious corruption of the state democratic party; 2) the fact that Lautenburg is old as the hills, can't speak worth a damn anymore and looks and talks like he's losing it; 3) Lautenburg only won his last race in 1994 by three percentage points, the same margin Corzine won by in 2000 while spending $68 million of his own money; and, 4) this will energize the Republcan base in the state like nothing else would. A fifth factor should be there, but won't be --despite their overwhelming support for Democrats (usually 95 percent), blacks were passed over entirely in the consideration of substitute candidates. This should be considered a real slap in the face -- the Democratic mayor of New Jersey's largest city is black (Sharpe James of Newark) as is one of the rising new mayors in the country (Doug Palmer of Trenton) and a veteran NJ congressman, Don Payne. Yet none of their names were even mentioned while the state Demos bent over backwards for an old multimillionaire who retired from politics, very tired and wan, two years ago.

[Torie]

By the way I found the NJSC decision spendidly free of legal reasoning, or any attempt to limit its reach, or explain just why the statute was inapposite. It must be a liberating experience to write up decisions where you ruling is based on well, that is the result I want pursuant to exercising my equitable powers because it is for the good of the people. It also suggests that legal clerks are now excess baggage since legal analysis really isn't required anymore. If it feels good, just do it. I like it. I want to be on a supreme court.

[meyer]

The clinton legacy of the democrat party

This is beyond Clinton. This race illustrates so clearly what 40 years of the Great Society/Socialism/Relativism has brought to this country. We basically have a handfull of appointees making law. Not interpreting law. Not fitting it within the confines of a state or federal constitution; making law. And, they are making law selectively. The SCOFLA(w) was the first to bring the issue to national attention; NJ has done it again.

This type of judicial activism is exactly why the Republicans need a house and senate majority. Two years can help undo a lot of Clinton's damage. It can also readjust the federal court system to again align itself with the constitution. As for state courts, sadly, they'll not learn until they get slapped down by the feds from time to time.

[#3Fan]

As I said on another thread: Is Forrester really so bad that the only candidate he can beat is a proven cheater?

Forrester has already spent some of his money defeating Torricelli! Lautenburg comes in with a fresh bank account. You want to just roll over for these Democratic lawbreakers?!

I mean, geez, I hate the SCONJ's ruling too, and it's sad, but if Forrester had an ounce of worth it seems he should be up to taking on all comers...right?

So you never want to stop these Dems from playing on an uneven field? They're going to do this over and over if we don't try to stop them. They'll send out a candidate to drain our guy of his advertising, and then send in a fresh candidate that hasn't had to go through the rigors of a year's worth of campaigning in the primary and the general. Yes I want a candidate to be able to win, but the parties are so even that you can't expect your candidate to have to spend money to defeat 2 or 3 different candidates consecutively.

[ml/nj]

This is really sad.

I went to the donation link, and my donation was rejected. It didn't say why, and clicking "help" just opened another window with the same information.

We're doomed!

ML/NJ