OT:What are the NJ Democrats THINKING?
10-02-2002, 12:07 PM
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Niskayuna, NY
Posts: 5,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ****?!
Platinum Member
10-02-2002, 01:25 PM
#3
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New Hampshuu !!
Posts: 2,808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.........
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.........
10-02-2002, 02:13 PM
#4
Charter Member #232
Charter Member
Typical Democrat as well. He gets busted doing "improper things" and in his speach yesterday he placed the blame on other people!!!!
Jon
Jon
__________________
Put your best foot forward!
Put your best foot forward!
10-02-2002, 02:25 PM
#5
Charter Member #71
Charter MemberJoin Date: Oct 2000
Location: Long Island,N.Y.
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
10-02-2002, 02:37 PM
#6
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Niskayuna, NY
Posts: 5,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
10-02-2002, 03:10 PM
#7
Registered
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Deeee-troit!
Posts: 3,358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-02-2002, 03:29 PM
#8
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ST. Louis, MO, USA
Posts: 1,658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
10-02-2002, 03:38 PM
#9
Charter Member #71
Charter MemberJoin Date: Oct 2000
Location: Long Island,N.Y.
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
10-02-2002, 03:45 PM
#10
Charter Member #71
Charter MemberJoin Date: Oct 2000
Location: Long Island,N.Y.
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
