Torricelli News Conference 5 pm EST LIVE THREAD

[marajade]

That was about a primary and someone perished. And it was about the state. This is a federal office.

[mwl1]

Does anyone know if GOP still controls either legislative chamber in NJ?

[marajade]

I believe I heard they control one house but I can't confirm it.

[CharacterCounts]

Doesn't matter. The court upheld the legislaure changing the election rules retroactively. It's precedent.

[hole_n_one]

Chris Matthews: It's a sad day

Twit!

[deport]

If he loses....then he quits (on 11/6).

Then Forrester wins and becomes the Senator from NJ on Jan. 3, 2003..... Someone else can be sworn in for the remainder of the Torch's term in 107th which ends on Jan 3, 2003 assuming the Senate is in session after the election. They are tenatively scheduled to adjour in Oct. but it's doubtful they'll make the scheduled date.

[Political Junkie Too]

I know the precedent, I'm just nodding my head in amazement again that people can get away with running a "fill in the blank candidate." Why not just do this all the time -- just run party slots and fill in the candidate after we see which party is chosen?

It has to be illegal because people are voting for representatives, not draft picks to be designated at a later date. What that is doing is delegating the selection of a representative to one individual, not the constituency at large, even if they are complicit in the choosing. And, in fact, they are not complicit in the choosing because those who voted for an opposing candidate did not vote to have a blank voted in, they voted for a live, breathing body. Even if their candidate loses, they went to the polls expecting to vote for a known candidate who campaigned, also expecting other voters to go to the polls and do the same. So, even if one side plays wink-wink-nod-nod, they are corrupting the process for everyone who goes to the polls.

-PJ

[IVote2]

You did have a nightmare! Wake up quick!

[mongrel]

I agree with you, and I hope it doesn't work. But I believe it will.

[Political Junkie Too]

Were we to adopt appellant's argument, our decision would render nugatory this important public policy and reduce the primary election to a choice of one.

That was for a primary election. In the general election, aren't there other party candidates besides the Republicans and Democrats? Who says that an election with no Democrat candidate reduces it to a choice of one?

-PJ

[marajade]

Well this is a federal office. Wouldn't it be unconstitutional?

[Constitutional Patriot]

I watched some of Mr. T's speech. What a self-serving bunch of crap!! He didn't gracefully apologize for being a complete dirt-bag and then leave with some dignity. No, he stood there and whined about "what ever happened to a country that knew how to forgive?" As if the disgrace he is enduring was caused by anyone but himself. He is a typical corrupt left-wing cry baby. He and Gore should do a nation-wide speaking tour on coping with political defeat.

[marajade]

I guess Toricelli kept trying to make the argument that ends justify the means... Well they don't.

[CharacterCounts]

The court put its seal of approval on the legislature retroactively

changing the deadline to avoid the 48 hour rule. Statutes are not normally retroactive and I think the decision stinks. But the reasoning, if the statute was again retroactively changed would be the same.

The key points here is not about primaries, it is about approving a statute that retroactively moves the election goal posts.

[hchutch]

But this guy is not as sympathetic as Carnahan was. This was a sleaze who bailed out, and now the Dems are trying to pull a "bait and switch."

Tell me, how many businesses would still have their doors open if they tried such a thing?

[IMRight]

Then Forrester wins and becomes the Senator from NJ on Jan. 3, 2003

Not if that reading of the law is correct! Apply the law the same way we've seen here.

Is Torch Senator? Yes
Does a vacancy occur during his term? Yes

Is it too late to schedule a special election before election day? Yes
Can the Gov appoint someone and name the election day as Nov 2004? Yes! (by that tortured reading).

Apply only the statute as has been argued here and tell me why it wouldn't happen?

[CharacterCounts]

Well this is a federal office. Wouldn't it be unconstitutional?

Probably not.

While the U.S. Constitution requies an election on the first Tuesday in November (the NJ court could not change that)it leaves the rest of the process pretty much up to the States.

[mwl1]

My point is that the legislature could act again -- in the next several days -- to compress the timetable, and McGreevey could sign it into law.

If we control one of the houses of the NJ legislature, that would effectively block that strategy.

[marajade]

If the Court does it there would a ton of public outcry about the unfairness of it. And the Republicans would then most certainly elevate it the USSC.

[Howlin]

I can't believe that ANY court would buy the argument the Democrats are going to have to make to explain WHY there is a vacancy.

"Because he was losing and we want to win." There's NO legal precedent for that.