The W
Views: 95623193
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.4.14 2103
The W - Current Events & Politics - Torch the Torch (Page 6)
This thread has 31 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6(2446 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (113 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1082 days
Last activity: 879 days
#101 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    As for Mink, it's not a related story. Different states have different election laws.


Trust me; I work with election laws on a daily basis. I know all about the differences(more than anybody would want to know). But I do think the Mink case serves as precedent that even when a candidate has passed on in other states their names are not removed from the ballot. Therefore, Torch's name should be stuck on there.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2642 days
Last activity: 2485 days
AIM:  
#102 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Instead of the courts, why don't we let the law decide?

NJ Law online

(NJ Statute 19:13-20):
"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, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner...

[The] selection made pursuant to this section shall be made not later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election, and a statement of such selection shall be filed with the Secretary of State or the appropriate county clerk, as the case may be, not later than said 48th day, and in the following manner..."

(Statute (19:3-26)
If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof, unless such vacancy shall happen within thirty days next preceding such election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the second succeeding general election, unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefore, which he is authorized hereby to do.

The governor of this state may make a temporary appointment of a senator of the United States from this state whenever a vacancy shall occur by reason of any cause other than the expiration of the term; and such appointee shall serve as such senator until a special election or general election shall have been held pursuant to law and the board of state canvassers can deliver to his successor a certificate of election.



This was legislating from the bench, pure and simple.




Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#103 Posted on
There is nowhere in that Statute that says what happens if a candidate withdraws with less than 51 days to go. Illegal means there is a law against it.

A Hawaii precedent in this matter is completely irrelevant to New Jersey. Unless the feds have passed a law or constitutional amandment about it (here in Brooklyn we still have to clear our district lines with the Justice Department because of Civil Rights laws for instance), election law is completely the domain of the different states. For all I know there is law in Hawaii saying "once a candidate's name is on the ballot, it can not be removed for any purposes," which is not a law New Jersey has.

Let's say Maine flipped a coin in case of tie vote earlier this year. Should Utah automatically do this too, even though there is nothing on the books in Utah that says what to do in case of a tie vote? Or should Utah courts instead decide to, say, do a re-vote?

And hey, aren't you Republicans all into State's Rights and stuff? Or is that just when it suits you (like with Florida)?

You should come to New York if you really want to see some insane election laws. The shit's amazing.



Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1082 days
Last activity: 879 days
#104 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I am into state's rights. Just using Hawaii as an alternative example.

Let's go back to the NJ Law for a moment...

(NJ Statute 19:13-20):
"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, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner... "


Now my take in thate is that if the vacancy is caused by anyting; death, conviction, withdrawal, resignation, losing a kidney in a freak waterpolo accident. Whatever. The deadline was the 51st day before the general election. Torch withdrew on the 36th. This is cut and dry, but the courts went in a direction contrary to the law.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#105 Posted on
They are clearly talking about any vacancy before 51 days. "which vacancy shall not occur less than 51 days..." They don't have a clause for vacancies that occur afterward.

Look, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the right answer, but at the very least both sides have a legit arguement, which should be decided by the NJ courts.

Also, as for Reagan, I agree about the USSR essentially destroying itself with an assist from the Gipper. But now we're paying the simplistic, short-sightedness of Reagan's "let's give a lot of weapons to anyone who doesn't like the commies, and preferably has a lot of oil" foreign policy. And we're going to be paying for it in ways we don't even know yet for a very long time.



Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Torchslasher
Knackwurst








Since: 17.1.02
From: New F'n Jersey

Since last post: 192 days
Last activity: 159 days
#106 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.44
I loved Torricelli asking about when we became such an unforgiving people. Hey Torch, it was when you broke the law and accepted illegal contributions from Johnny Chang. We are not as forgiving to a CRIMINAL.

I can't believe that McGreevy and Corzine can stand next to Torricelli and pat him on the back like he's being a big man in all this.

And count me in with the group that says that the Democrats are going above the law in this. Their justifications are flowery prose such as "we want a vibrant election," and "New Jersey deserves a choice."

I can only hope that the US Supreme Court will see this for what it is...illegal.



"Oh would you stop being all stealthy and just get in the truck"- Tom Servo
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1128 days
Last activity: 9 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#107 Posted on
Come on- the intentof the law is absolutly clear! I mean, think about it this way-

1- NO party is required to have a canditate in an election. The consititution was not designed with only 2 parties in mind, and if you look throughout history, there have been many more parties who have achieved political dominance in this country. Parties come and go.

2- Regardless of party, there is a procedure with which you go about getting your name on the ballot. In the case of the major parties, they often have Primary elections to determine who they will support in the election. The party DOES NOT have the right to a canditate on the ballot. If they fail to meet the requirements, they DO NOT GET ONE. Period!

In the case of New Jersey, Toricelli conceeded the election. The statute quoted above grants a party a PRIVELEDGE of replacing a canditate who drops out prior to 51 days. The reason there was no provision describing what happens if a canditate drops out AFTER 51 days is because that is already spelled out in election law! The 51 day statute is an exception to the rule, nothing else.

Torricelli "dropped out" after absentee votes were cast. Torricelli dropped out because he was behind in the polls (and due to a certain amount of armtwisting by his own party, I am sure). He CONCEEDED. Pure and simple. He lost- and now the Democrats want to throw someone else in there because "It is just not right that they lose an election?" The people were presented with a choice between two canditates. Voting had already started. How is it right for one party to change it's canditate at this late of hour because they realized that he would not win?

I am sorry... this is totally wrong. Democrats would be screaming bloody murder if the Republican party EVER tried to pull something like this. Oh! Simon might LOSE in California! Lets put someone else in there! OH! its 2004 and Bush might have a chance of losing! Lets pull him, bring out Reagan out of mothballs, give him a VP we like, and have him resign after he wins the election!

Oh, and if you do not think that Lautenberg is not going to quit shortly after the election, so that the Democratic gov of New Jersey can appoint someone to the position, you are deluding yourself.

Oh, and what about the Democrats vaunted arguments about the 2000 presidential election. "Voter disenfranchisement?" What about the Democratic primary? If I am not mistaken, there were SIX canditates for Torricelli's seat, none of which were Frank Lautenberg. So are you telling me that election meant nothing? What about the guy who came in second?

The Democratic Party just disenfrancized their entire party in the state of New Jersey. Their votes meant NOTHING! The person they chose to be their canditate could not win, so the party stepped in and said "You can't get it right- we are choosing FOR you!" How very democratic....

This is just disgusting. The damned GREEN party has better ethics than this....


(edited by Pool-Boy on 3.10.02 1406)

Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 1-3!
On the road to oh and sixt... Wha?
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Connecticut

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 21 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#108 Posted on
All I'm saying about this is that up here, there's about six districts for state representative that are uncontested by the Democrats. Would it kill Joisey to have one, even for the Senate? Face it, your guy fucked up, he's going to lose, it's too late. Only question here is what's going to happen when the Supreme Court tears the lower court a new one.



Today's Out-Of-Context Quote, Courtesy of Fuzzy Logic:

"I want to have JR's lovechild."
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#109 Posted on
I am for an attack on Iraq. For the simple reason that they have repeatedly violated numerous UN sanctions against them, and have not lived up to thier part of the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War. The fact that they do indeed sponsor and train terrorists is just icing on the cake.

Are we doing this for pure political reasons? What a silly question, when did anybody in Washington EVER do anything that wasnt for pure political reasons? But the fact remains, we are justified in an invasion, and removal of the current administration. Pure and simple.



As for Taxes, a flat tax would be the best for the nation. Why is my dollar worth more or less than somebody elses dollar? If 40cents out of every one of my dollars is going to pay the government, why shouldnt 40 cents out of a multi millionaire's dollar be considered an equal contribution?

(edited by StaggerLee on 3.10.02 2242)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1082 days
Last activity: 879 days
#110 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by drjayphd
    All I'm saying about this is that up here, there's about six districts for state representative that are uncontested by the Democrats. Would it kill Joisey to have one, even for the Senate? Face it, your guy fucked up, he's going to lose, it's too late. Only question here is what's going to happen when the Supreme Court tears the lower court a new one.


Hopefully then the Democrats will stop trying to circumvent election laws everywhere they go...though I won't bet on it.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#111 Posted on
Oh, and if you do not think that Lautenberg is not going to quit shortly after the election, so that the Democratic gov of New Jersey can appoint someone to the position, you are deluding yourself.


No, Lautenberg didn't run last time because he hates raising money and campaigning, not because he didn't want to be a Senator. While I don't think he'd run again in 2008, he's not going to quit.

The more I think about this, the more I'm starting to get pissed at the Democratic Party. Mostly because

a) If there is going to be another nominee, the primary voters should choose him or her, not the party, and

b) there is perfectly good, non legally-ambivilant solution to this: Torch resigns, Gov. appoints Lautenburg, special election. It might be a bit of a dirty trick, but it's 100% OK legality-wise. Why the heck won't the Torch just quit?

I still don't thnk it's as blatently illegal as some however, and those ambigueties shouldbe resolved by the Jersey courts. This "well they didn't explicitely say it but OBVIOUSLY they meant it" arguement is generally what the GOP decries as "Judicial Activism," and "Legislating from the bench." And this "if the GOP did it you'd be screaming bloody murder" arguement goes both ways: if the GOP did it you'd probably think it was OK.






Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1082 days
Last activity: 879 days
#112 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
No, circumventing the law is circumventing the law. The law clearly states 51 days. The Jersey courts should be the ones to stop legislating from the bench.

Moe is right about the Torch winning/Torch resigning scenario. Frankly, I don't see it as too dirty. But there would be no point to it. If you think Torch's name stays on the ballot and he does win that he won't march himself down to DC for another term. You're damn right he will because he needs to continue to feed that ego of his. This is less about New Jersey and more about the Torch trying to save face with the party.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1128 days
Last activity: 9 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#113 Posted on
Actually, believe it or not, I would not be OK if a GOP canditate blatantly attempted to break election laws like this.... I can't say much more than that.. I would rather not have total boneheads running my party. There was a perfectly legal means out of this whole mess for the democrats just over a month ago, and they ignored their window... this is not like school where you might get partial credit for turning in your report late!
It is good to see that there are some Democrats out there that at least have an inkling that what their party is doing is wrong in this case... If there is one thing I detest (no matter WHAT party their belong to) is someone who agrees with everything their party says or does with no sound basis behind their opinion than "That is what ____s think." These people are morons, and I often wonder why they should be allowed to vote. I mean, if you have no idea why you believe something, how can you possibly understand the implications of what you believe?



Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 1-3!
On the road to oh and sixt... Wha?
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6Thread ahead: Um...
Next thread: Hitchens to leave The Nation
Previous thread: Reorganize the U.N.
(2446 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
McCain loses and Palin goes back to Alaska to stay.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Torch the Torch (Page 6)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.137 seconds.