Ex-Senator (Lautenberg) to Replace Torricelli

AP via Yahoo ^ | 10/01/02 | JOHN P. McALPIN

[mysonsfuture]

Don't Quit! That what the dem Ba###rds want you to do. Fight harder. Our republic is at stake. Freep the NJ Supreme Court.

[mystery-ak]

Ya know, the torch quit, he forfeited the game...game over, Forrester wins.....am I wrong here!

My blood pressure must be sky-high, Im going to stroke-out or become an alcoholic before this election is over.

[Torie]

I think that all those other names put up to replace the Torch were phony, since Lautenberg was the obvious choice from day one. I think they did it to implement plan B, which is to get Torch to resign by next Monday, which he has probably told them he would refuse to do for Lautenberg. Now they can say they tried to find someone else, but all turned them down, so he should play ball. If he resigns, the Dems' case is infinitely stronger. As it is, the Dems don't have a case, and I don't think the NJSC will go for it. Yes, I am going out on a limb, but I just can't see how the Court can do it.

[Miss Marple]

Not only would we have facts, but I am able to talk on and on without pausing and INTERRUPT just like the Rats! I have been studying their techniques!

By the way, in case no one has mentioned it Lautenberg or McGreevey (couldn't hear which one because I was in the other room) talked about how important it was that the Rats win to preserve "a woman's right to choose and the sanctity of the environment."

I swear they are some kind of cult. Infant- sacrificing tree-worhippers.

[YaYa123]

Lautenberg was totally unprepared for his announcement speech. Dick Morris called it the worst announcement ever. I couldn't believe my ears when Lautenberg said he was for women having "unfettered right to choose".

What?

yes, he said, "unfettered right to choose". The old geezer mangled his soundbites! He stuttered, stammered.....I don't think Forrester will have much trouble with him.

I know it's a long shot....but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the New Jersey judges could do the right thing and force Toricelli to keep his name on the ballot. Ok ok, I'm dreaming.

But with Hawaii democrats fighting to run a dead woman, nothing should shock us.

[aristeides]

However, Democrats say decades of state court decisions put voters' rights above filing deadlines and other technical guidelines.

Hmmm, has nobody told AP that the only case on point for this issue is directly contrary?

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

I've heard that some of the absentee ballots have already been sent out. If those voters have already filled out their ballots -- and if they might have voted Dem if Torch wasn't the dem choice -- ..... well, I just am wondering if the dems will say -- hey, those people need to get a chance to vote AGAIN because we have a new candidate. Talk about moving the goal posts.

[montag813]

Don't Quit! That what the dem Ba###rds want you to do. Fight harder. Our republic is at stake. Freep the NJ Supreme Court.

That's the spirit. God bless you!!!

[marajade]

I'm a moderate and as much as it pains me I'm voting a straight Republican ticket in the general. Including a candidate who switched to a Rep from a Dem just to win our Republican primary and most likely the seat of school's chief because of our Republican voter advantage...

[andy58-in-nh]

I think Bob Dylan had it right (at least in this case):

"In Jersey, anything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."

[Tennessean4Bush]

They would not be doing this unless the fix was already in. They already know the outcome of this Supreme Court decision. Why else would they do this?

[NeoCaveman]

The Democrats just overturned an election!

Their primary election.

[Will_Zurmacht]

EXACTLY!...this is a week-long stall tactic, they'll lose eventually in the courts, be left with "NO OPTION" but for the torch to "resign" for the good of the party...I wouldn't be suprised if this hadn't been in the works for a week deep in the Clinton's Reichstag...er, sorry bunker in New York...

[CharacterCounts]

But if SCONJ were to rule in favor of this, I can see absolutely NO precedent.

Actually, the precedent established over the past 225 years is the other way. The court cannot modify a statute. It must enforce the statute unless the statute is too vague to interpret or is unconstitutional.

This very same court visited this very same statute last year and did not find anything vague or unconstitutional about it. They actually said that the legislative intent was to not permit a change after the deadline date.

If this court votes in favor of the Dems it loses all credibility.

[IFly4Him]

This can't stand. Any official in NJ that uses their office to promote this illegal effort deserves impeachment and removal. We must protect our rights as citizens - government power must be limited.

After the Dems petition the NJSC, they will be on record - the President should condemn this power grab and highlight it as a national issue.

Any Dem that argues in favor of this outrageous ploy should be called to the carpet. Make 'em feel the heat. We shouldn't be acting like this is a reasonable debate about differences of opinion. There is no opinion here! The law is very clear. There should be no debate. Any judge worth their salt would laugh this bunch out of the courtroom. No grounds whatsoever!

This is like something out of a one-party totalitarian state...

[DWPittelli]

Yes. My real worry is that the Democrats are doing this even though they know they are unlikely to get a replacement on the ballot.

Their real plan:

1) They know that the Torch will lose. So they have no downside.

2) Maybe they get Lautenberg as a replacement, and maybe he'll win.

3) Better yet for them, the law is followed, and they get no replacement. They will of course lose this one seat, which they'd lose anyway. Then they'll whine a lot about how unfair it (i.e., following the law) is. The press will of course take the side of "fairness."

Then all the idiots in the middle -- the swing voters who actually decide all close elections will feel sorry (or outraged) for them. And the Dems will win other seats in the Senate and House which they would lose otherwise.

In a way, it's like all the screaming in Florida. The question is whether anti-legal screams for "fairness" will fool more people than they will appall. As in Florida, they're betting on enough swing voters being idiots, and on motivating their base to come out for payback elsewhere.

[Torie]

It was just the first shot. The plan always included the resignation, but what the Dems felt they needed was resignation plus Lautenberg on the ballot, and the Torch wasn't cooperating. Thus the Dems had to manufacture an ersatz musical chairs routine to show the Torch that they tried to find someone he didn't hate, but failed.

[cake_crumb]

Pssssst...Let's put all the relevant stuff in one spot for easy...err...spotting...

Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature....

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

[DadOfFive]

Remember in 2000 when the decision was in the hands of the
little black female democrat judge and we were all fearing a certain bad decision to come out. We were all surprised (and pleased) because she did her job.
Don't give up hope altogether. We will prevail. Someone
upstairs was with us then. Trust that no matter what happens, there is a Reason.

The SCOTUS may play a part too.

Side note: I wonder if I am the first to be reminded of Admiral Coverdale when I saw Lautenberg?
(Not dissing the far more admirable admiral :0) )

[samantha]

Don't waste your breath, some people just wallow in negativity. Anyone that is not Pat Buchanan or Jessie Helms is automatically not conservative enough to suit the king of mean. Elizabeth Dole is good enough for me, especially to get that majority back. Also, if the NJSC messes up, it(toricelli mess) will go to the USSC poste haste. Lets all try to stay upbeat,and work like hell for GOP candidates.