New Jersey high court rejects bid to recall senator

[Redress]

New Jersey high court rejects bid to recall senator - Yahoo! News

Reuters 1pm-New Jersey's Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a bid to recall Senator Robert Menendez, ruling that state law does not allow the removal of a sitting federal representative outside of scheduled elections.

"The court finds that ... the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote in a majority 4-2 opinion.

I think this is the best thing, since allowing voters to recall senators could create huge problems. People sitting and watching for low approval ratings and pushing to oust them for political gain. We have elections at set intervals, that should be enough.

 

[jamesrage]

I think this is a bad thing. Employers should be allowed to fire bad employees on the spot.

 

[DarkWizard12]

New Jersey high court rejects bid to recall senator - Yahoo! News



I think this is the best thing, since allowing voters to recall senators could create huge problems. People sitting and watching for low approval ratings and pushing to oust them for political gain. We have elections at set intervals, that should be enough.

That's stupid, don't other states have the ability to recall their senators?

 

[Redress]

That's stupid, don't other states have the ability to recall their senators?

AS I read it, they can state officials but not federal officials.

 

[Heavy Duty]

New Jersey high court rejects bid to recall senator - Yahoo! News



I think this is the best thing, since allowing voters to recall senators could create huge problems. People sitting and watching for low approval ratings and pushing to oust them for political gain. We have elections at set intervals, that should be enough.

So you have a problem with the people whom put politicans in office the ability to take them out when they dont serve the purpose of the voters.

Wonder if it has anything to do with this senator being a liberal?

 

[Redress]

So you have a problem with the people whom put politicans in office the ability to take them out when they dont serve the purpose of the voters.

Wonder if it has anything to do with this senator being a liberal?

They do have such an ability. We periodically vote for our officials and can vote them out any time we want.

I wonder if my view is based on something other reasoning and not partisanship? I bet it is...

 

[Heavy Duty]

They do have such an ability. We periodically vote for our officials and can vote them out any time we want.

I wonder if my view is based on something other reasoning and not partisanship? I bet it is...

So you think when someone doesnt serve the people they should only be removed from office by voting in elections? Wonder if you would have said the same thing in 06 when they libs were screaming for Bush to be impeached?

And I think it has everything to do with partisanship seeing what a Obama stooge Senator Robert Menendez is.

 

[Redress]

So you think when someone doesnt serve the people they should only be removed from office by voting in elections? Wonder if you would have said the same thing in 06 when they libs were screaming for Bush to be impeached?

And I think it has everything to do with partisanship seeing what a Obama stooge Senator Robert Menendez is.

I never called for Bush to be impeached.

You are allowed to think whatever wrong things you want to. I would point out though that the thread I created before this one I stated that Rangel should be thrown out of office, despite the fact that he is a liberal...

 

[haymarket]

People are elected to serve a term in office. That is part of the contract between voter and official. The one exception should be grounds for removal based on criminal behavior. Allowing recall of Senators is taking us on the roller coaster to dysfunctional government hell and greasing the tracks to pick up speed.

Of course, if your goal is indeed failure of government, then you should back unrestricted recall with all your strength.

 

[texmaster]

New Jersey high court rejects bid to recall senator - Yahoo! News



I think this is the best thing, since allowing voters to recall senators could create huge problems. People sitting and watching for low approval ratings and pushing to oust them for political gain. We have elections at set intervals, that should be enough.

I have to say I disagree. The people's power should not be limited to every election. 6 years is a long time to wait and watch the damage continue without any recourse by the people.

She accused the court of "judicial activism" and said the majority of the justices disregarded a 1995 amendment to the state constitution that established the right of recall for a sitting U.S. senator.

If she is right about the ruling and they did ignore it its very troubling.

 

[The Mark]

Personally, I think recalling a elected official should only be if they have committed crime, or are somehow incapable of doing their job - the problem is defining that last in such a way that it prevents opposing political parties/individuals from using such a system to **** with each other.

As we all know they would, if possible.

That doesn't sound right, somehow...

:mrgreen: You know what I mean.

 

[MaggieD]

New Jersey high court rejects bid to recall senator - Yahoo! News



I think this is the best thing, since allowing voters to recall senators could create huge problems. People sitting and watching for low approval ratings and pushing to oust them for political gain. We have elections at set intervals, that should be enough.

I think you're right....after I thought about it. Just because voters don't like the way a politician is representing them shouldn't make recall elections possible. That's what elections are for. This kind of thing could end up costing taxpayers millions as special interest groups ramp up to demand a recall election.

We have systems in place within the House and Senate to handle malfeasance. Other than that, election time's good enough.

 

[Redress]

I have to say I disagree. The people's power should not be limited to every election. 6 years is a long time to wait and watch the damage continue without any recourse by the people.

She accused the court of "judicial activism" and said the majority of the justices disregarded a 1995 amendment to the state constitution that established the right of recall for a sitting U.S. senator.

If she is right about the ruling and they did ignore it its very troubling.

I think(have not read the ruling itself yet so not positive) that the decision was that the state laws are irrelevant due to it being a federal office.

From the constitution:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State for six Years;

However:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

I think what the court ruled is the constitution says 6 years, and that the second quote only refers to setting up those every 6th year election. If I get some free time tonight, I will try and read through the ruling.

 

[Hicup]

Personally, I think recalling a elected official should only be if they have committed crime, or are somehow incapable of doing their job - the problem is defining that last in such a way that it prevents opposing political parties/individuals from using such a system to **** with each other.

As we all know they would, if possible.

That doesn't sound right, somehow...

:mrgreen: You know what I mean.

I agree! If there was a way to allow it that wouldn't be abused, then I'd be for it, but I can't think of a way to do it without the abuse?

Tim-

 

[Redress]

I agree! If there was a way to allow it that wouldn't be abused, then I'd be for it, but I can't think of a way to do it without the abuse?

Tim-

Yeah, this is why I like the ruling. If it starts to be allowed, I think it would be abused, and badly, by democrats and republicans. Senator votes for unpopular bill(which is allowed), then quick call for recall. Every single time we hit economic hard times, which result in lower approval ratings for people in congress, recall calls would happen.

 

[Morality Games]

I think this is a bad thing. Employers should be allowed to fire bad employees on the spot.

The American people don't have the training to micromanage politics.

 

[Heavy Duty]

The American people don't have the training to micromanage politics.

Yet the majority of voters voted for someone like Obama that didnt have the training to run the country.

Voters make mistakes and should have the right to fix them.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

You realize that by 2006, that would've meant Bush would've likely been recalled? And then a new election in 2008 and now you guys want to recall the president in 2010, etc.

It's chaos is what it is. It would eventually lead to anarchy.

If the country survived the ****-ups of Bush, it will surivive Obama's and it will survive Menendez serving out his term.

Recall elections are for drama queens.

 

[Harshaw]

One state allowing for a recall election for its Senators would not lead to "chaos," nor would it affect anything other than that one's state Senators. Creating a recall election for the President would require a full Constitutional amendment, which ain't ever gonna happen. That slope is not only not slippery, it's coated with superglue. (THANK YOU, federalism.)

That said, I don't think it's a good idea, for all the reasons stated.

And with THAT said, I don't think the 17th Amendment prevents a state from setting it up.

 

[Councilman]

New Jersey high court rejects bid to recall senator - Yahoo! News



I think this is the best thing, since allowing voters to recall senators could create huge problems. People sitting and watching for low approval ratings and pushing to oust them for political gain. We have elections at set intervals, that should be enough.

I not only believe there should be a mechanism for "WE THE PEOPLE" to remove any elected official from office for any reason at any time.

It should not be too easy but it needs to be possible because as in the case of Obama who is acting in less than the best interest of the Nation he and his mate seem to hate, it would be best id he where to go away and take Biden with him. I'd call it a twofer recall.

But i
I would wait until Pelosi is long gone before I did it, because that sorry excue for a human in as Anti- American as Obama & Reid.

 

[Redress]

One state allowing for a recall election for its Senators would not lead to "chaos," nor would it affect anything other than that one's state Senators.

Harshaw, from the source:

Conservative activists are seeking to recall elected members of Congress in other states including Louisiana, North Dakota and Colorado.

So we already have 4 states trying to do this, and more would follow, either now or later. Chaos might be an exaggeration, but big mess would not be.

 

[Harshaw]

Harshaw, from the source:



So we already have 4 states trying to do this, and more would follow, either now or later. Chaos might be an exaggeration, but big mess would not be.

Perhaps, but a state supreme court ruling doesn't affect anything other than the state it sits in. So, if the NJ supreme court had decided the other way, it doesn't open any doors for any other state.

 

[haymarket]

I not only believe there should be a mechanism for "WE THE PEOPLE" to remove any elected official from office for any reason at any time.

It should not be too easy but it needs to be possible because as in the case of Obama who is acting in less than the best interest of the Nation he and his mate seem to hate, it would be best id he where to go away and take Biden with him. I'd call it a twofer recall.

But i
I would wait until Pelosi is long gone before I did it, because that sorry excue for a human in as Anti- American as Obama & Reid.

If you want to destroy government as an effective agency representing the people, this is one amazing idea.

 

[Redress]

Perhaps, but a state supreme court ruling doesn't affect anything other than the state it sits in. So, if the NJ supreme court had decided the other way, it doesn't open any doors for any other state.

Oops, apparently I should have read my own source better. Was thinking it was a federal court.

 

[Harshaw]

Even a federal court will only affect its district or circuit. In order to open doors nationwide, it would have to be SCOTUS.