OT:What are the NJ Democrats THINKING?
 

Here we again....I know this will get some people pissed but I feel compelled to discuss my frustration. It appears since Senator Toracelli(sp?) has dropped out of the race for the NJ congressional seat due to questionable actions, the NJ democratic party is following the same course the National Democratic Party did with the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. When teh laws do not suit the needs of teh democrats they say "well, the laws are meant to be manipulated and bent, so lets do so". This gets me so MAD! The CONSTITUTION clearly states that each term in congress shall be for 6 years, no matter how many people fill the seat in that time frame. By petitioning to have Frank Lautenberg on the ticket in November is in not only in CLEAR violation of NJ statute, but also in violation of the CONSTITUTION! So I guess when you are a DEMOCRAT you can PURJUR yourself before a FEDERAL COURT (Clinton) and you can simply not follow the Constitution if these rules and regulations do not suit your needs and purpose! UNF*cking believable! When are people going to WAKE up and stop this ****?!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

The law of the land seems to be ONE the Democrats biggest Enemies.:(

You watch.....what they are going to do to "sidestep" the law (when they lose in court in the next week) is to have the Governor appoint Lautenberg to fill The Torch's position and complete his term, which is not November, but in January.

At that point there will be a special election, and the Dems will put up who they REALLY want (having had an additional 3 months to work on it) for the position. And if the Reps tried this, you know the Dems and the press would be screaming bloody murder........

Mark my words, this is how they will "get away with it" !! Unf*cking believable......... :rolleyes: :mad:

Typical Democrat as well. He gets busted doing "improper things" and in his speach yesterday he placed the blame on other people!!!!

Jon

My first question would be....

Since there have already been absentee ballots cast , what happens to the ones for Toricelli ?
They can't transfer to Lautenberg ; the people didn't vote for him ! Does that mean their vote doesn't count ?

My understanding is that the legal deadline to remove Toricelli's name from the ballot and replace it with another is long past .
What's the point of the law if you can circumvent it any time you want to ?
You can't just go changing the candidates just because the polls say your party's gonna lose !

Not to mention that Lautenberg would be in his 80's when his term would expire....

Wes,

GREAT point I FORGOT to mention about the deadline. These dem's NEVER cease to amaze me. You are right and many absentee ballots HAVE been sent out. It will be VERY interesting to see how it all plays out.

Shane

Here is an excellent analysis of the situation:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel.asp

Your initial premise is wrong. The NJ democratic machine decided it was time for him to drop out because he was going to lose.
Now they have the options to 1) fight in the courts to get a replacement on the ballot 2) fight in the courts to have a 1 year (Democrat) governor appointed replacement if they can get Toracelli to resign prior to the election.
According to the previous actions of the NJ courts, the democrats cant lose. It's actually a smart, if not ethical, decision.
Gary

I think you can throw all logic out the door here...

There was a recent court decision in N.Y. where two of three candidates were thrown off a primary ballot because of technical laws broken during the petition process...

The removed candidates appealed and won . The judge ,while recognizing they hadn't adhered to the law , believed that voters , not courts , should decide the winner and reversed the earlier decision.
I thought judges interpreted the law not imposed their own beliefs...but that's another story..

I certainly agree that's why the Democratic machine let him quit but I'm not sure its a smart or ethical thing...this may backfire on them.
Unless they can get the new candidate moving quickly (the election's only a month away)they're losing valuable campaign time to their Republican opponent.

Either way , its a dirty business.

Wes,
It's my understanding (I could be wrong) that if they dont get a replacement on the ballot, Torricelli could resign prior to the election. This would allow the DEMOCRAT governor to replace him. The way the law is written and could be interpreted, the replacement could be for a year. This would require a special election next year.
Sounds like a clever move if control for the senate comes down to one vote.
As for logic in NY, they elected Hillary and inflicted her opinions and votes on all of us. Enough said.
Gary

Every politician is out there for one thing:mad: :mad: :mad: HIMSELF:mad: . Republican , demacrat , whatever ,different face different day , business as usual :( Their job is to make money for the government...OUR money:eek: . If the law doesn't suit them , they change it:mad: . We get F@<&ed so much I'd say I fell like a 2 bit whore , but at least they get paid. IMHO:rolleyes:

The only thing is...if the Governor appoints someone else toteh seat it is a CELAR BREACH of the CONSTITUTION! The CONSTITUTION specifically states that no matter how many people fill the vacany that term can only last 6 YEARS! If another person is appointed then it would extend the term to 7 years and be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Shane,
You're exactly right, but what actually happens depens on NJ judges. The majority of them were appointed by democrats.
Gary

Good point Gary !

It just seems like the people will have less to say about who gets elected than they usually do ! :mad: :rolleyes:

As for Hillary......I still can't find anyone who admits to voting for her .;)

I can't find anyone who will admit they voted for her husband.....twice!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Well, I'm sure that most of you have heard by now that our liberal NJ Supreme Court found in favor of the Dems to put "Lausenberg" on the ballot and that they have to foot the bill for reprinting (approx. $800,000.00). The law was clear. I did some election lawyering in the past and am friends w/ the lawyer representing Republican Forrester. I don't think that they will leave it there. An appeal to the Federal level will be made and the decision will eventually be overturned b/c absentee ballots to military personnel and others must be mailed 35 days prior to the election. As a practicing attorney, decisions like todays really make you ask yourself if there isn't something better to do w/ your time. It's an embarassment and I can't beleive that they found someone to actually want to run. :mad:

I was so pissed I went to NRSC
and donated 100 bucks. I hope they spend it to ridicule the Dems back to the Stone Age over this bullsh*t.

mopower, CAN I SHOUT THAT OUT!

Little Democratic Catch Phrase " Disenfranchised Voters", which they have used since Bush won Fla. Now they are doing it to their own, the NJ voters already have spoken in the Dem. Primary on who they wanted on the ballot. By changing the name on the ballot they have taken away the peoples choice.
Jan