Unbeleiveable, Supreme Court Abbrogates rule of law

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-10-07 01:56pm

They Let that bastard torricelli get away with it.
Still sketchy, but it looks like they refused to deal with it because they are too busy.

SOB, its like saying its okay to steal an election

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-07 02:57pm

They should have un-fucked it, but it won't matter much. The Dems are not going to do well in NJ this year. The only problem is with the precedent the NJ SC has made and the utter political mess we will have to deal with every Sept. to Oct.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-10-07 03:22pm

I think courts are EXTREMELY hesitant to get involved with delicate matters like elections. They are afraid of what happened to teh Supreme Court in the Gore/Bush elections. They are in a no win situation, either way they vote, the other side will simply say they wer playing faborites, or worse they simply appointed someone over the will of the people. Courts do not want to step into that politcal minefield.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-07 03:24pm

Well those shits are mostly Demi Wankers. I argee with the REdnecks it is wrong, and tough shit for the Democrats. I actually would like the Senate too stay like it is. Pacifists, slightlky nymbering nothing gets done, Right Wing tries too make Christainity offical religion, but they can't do anything. A new political party must form: Lennoxian

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-07 03:28pm

Stravo wrote:I think courts are EXTREMELY hesitant to get involved with delicate matters like elections. They are afraid of what happened to teh Supreme Court in the Gore/Bush elections. They are in a no win situation, either way they vote, the other side will simply say they wer playing faborites, or worse they simply appointed someone over the will of the people. Courts do not want to step into that politcal minefield.

This is why the NJ SC should not have taken this case either. Now every election year, we will be right back here with both parties.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-07 04:07pm

Knife wrote:
Stravo wrote:I think courts are EXTREMELY hesitant to get involved with delicate matters like elections. They are afraid of what happened to teh Supreme Court in the Gore/Bush elections. They are in a no win situation, either way they vote, the other side will simply say they wer playing faborites, or worse they simply appointed someone over the will of the people. Courts do not want to step into that politcal minefield.

This is why the NJ SC should not have taken this case either. Now every election year, we will be right back here with both parties.

Yep, kinda of what Mike says the pussification of the nation.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-07 04:23pm

The US Supreme Court gives its self-new powers through its rulings on a yearly basis. The ability to bypass laws without Constitutional grounds is a well established.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-07 04:24pm

Both parties thouroughly piss me off. Did you hear about the rep. who changed to independent because he didn't agree with Bush's policies? I turned to my dad in shock and said "Can he actually do that?!" My dad shrugged. I got all pissed off cause that SOB probably wouldn't have been elected if he'd run independent.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-07 04:39pm

Don't forget these are the people who where egged in public after the Florida Rulings, this one was seriously an issue that while they should have unfucked(Even one of the democrates went aginst his own side here, Look its OBVIOUS this is a Pro-democratic state where they can bend the laws

The US Supreme Court gives its self-new powers through its rulings on a yearly basis. The ability to bypass laws without Constitutional grounds is a well established.

Indeed, I'm personaly thankful that they did NOT hear the case or agree with it(They basicly said, Laaa laaa laa not our problem)

Because even if they HAD unfucked it, the long term president would have been worse than the short term fixing

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-07 04:40pm

Err...what? Why is it evil to change parties? I hate the fact that Toricelli just changes his mind and pulls out, but changing political parties because your beliefs are more in tune with another one is a different thing entirely.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-07 04:42pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Err...what? Why is it evil to change parties? I hate the fact that Toricelli just changes his mind and pulls out, but changing political parties because your beliefs are more in tune with another one is a different thing entirely.

Because it's like betraying the people who voted for you. Think of it like this: a candidate runs as one party, gets elected, and switches. If you're a person who's solidly behind the original party, would you be OK with this?

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-07 05:05pm

Because it's like betraying the people who voted for you. Think of it like this: a candidate runs as one party, gets elected, and switches. If you're a person who's solidly behind the original party, would you be OK with this?

Well, yeah. Because I am not solidly behind the Republicans. I just happen to agree with most of their positions. When I turn 18 and vote for candidates, I will vote based on what THEIR positions are on the issues, not the party's position. Let's assume he switched parties but kept his same positions on certain issues. No big deal. However, if he changed his positions on certain issues as well, I would be pissed off.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-07 07:47pm

I don't like it but that's the law. If people are outraged enough they can just not vote for the Democratic replacement.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2002-10-07 08:16pm

The only long term solution is for the legislature to redraft the pertinant election law to eliminate the apparent loophole exploited by the NJ Democratic Party.

For my part, I will not vote for Lautenberg.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-08 01:50am

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Err...what? Why is it evil to change parties? I hate the fact that Toricelli just changes his mind and pulls out, but changing political parties because your beliefs are more in tune with another one is a different thing entirely.

No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, the parties that help fund and support the canidates that run for office have alot at stake with the canidate. Whe he/she changes parties, alot of investment is wasted and their own power is deminished. All republicans lost power (good or bad depending on who you are) when one of their own turned to a independent allowing the Dems to take over the leadership of the Senate.
On top of that there is the whole issue of Primary elections that the people of a party voted for that person to represent the party in the election. If the people of that particular party knew that the canidate would have changed parties, then they probably would not have voted for them to represent their party in the first place and the canidate would have never reached the actual election.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Unbeleiveable, Supreme Court Abbrogates rule of law

Do you aggree with the supremes?

Unbeleiveable, Supreme Court Abbrogates rule of law