Toricelli & The Courts: Why Not to Worry

The Cincinnati Enquirer | Borgman

[Mo1]

VOTE THE RATS OUT!!

DONATE TONIGHT. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[elfman2]

There's a weird opportunity hat I haven't really seen analyzed that I question if it could prevent the Republicans from taking control for a few months.

In Missouri, I believe, a Democrat was appointed by the Governor after the previous senator's death. Therefore, his replacement will take office immediately following the elections rather than waiting for January 2003 like everywhere else. If the Republican candidate wins the election their but the balance stays the same, the Republicans retake control of the Senate only until January. The president can call special session, and bottled up legislation can be put forth then.

But if Toricelli 's seat is bottled up in the court for this time period, couldn't the Democrats deny us that opportunity?

[Elle Bee]

Mary Jo White news.

OLD news to FReepers

....Nuck,Nuck, Nuck

MoeJo White-Wash

.

Passing on the Torch - Sen. Torricelli escapes prosecution ~ WSJ.

.

[twigs]

I heard one newscaster report that this will not be bottled up in the courts. The NJ Supreme Court (republican controlled) will make a quick decision. Once the 2000 election case got to thre US Supreme Court, they made their decision quickly too. Hopefully, the dems will be told that they have to follow the 51-day law as written. End of story. But who knows?

[elfman2]

" The NJ Supreme Court (republican controlled) "

That's encouraging, thanks.

[mwl1]

GOP no longer has a majority on the NJ Supreme Court. All bets are off. The RATS insist on making a mockery of our elections, year after year. They are getting more daring and brazen with each cycle, aided and abetted by the news media and the profound ignorance of the American people.

[frmrda]

That's wrong. It was 3 Republicans (or what passes for Republicans in NJ), 3 Dems and 1 independent.

McGreevey just filled a vacancy with a 4th Democrat.

[coder2]

According to what I heard on FoxNews this a.m. --- the NJ Supreme Court is now 4 dems, 2 reps and 1 independent.

The latest dem was added just a few weeks ago and is a close, personal friend of the NJ governor...

UGH !!!

[epow]

I read somewhere last night that the NJSC is now 4-3 in favor of Dems. In an ideal world that wouldn't matter, only the law would matter, but in the real world politics often trumps law as we saw happen in FL.

NJ isn't going to let FL win the race to the bottom of the sleaze pit. After all, it has a reputation to protect you know.

[GraniteStateConservative]

It doesn't matter what the partisan make up is, it's one of the most liberal state supreme courts in the nation.

[xzins]

The NJ Supreme is not, but this is an election for a NATIONAL OFFICE. Any election law of NJ must be in compliance with US election law.....therefore, the US Supreme's can weigh in on this if they so desire; if NJ gets out of line.

That was proven in Florida during the algore, soreloserman debacle.

[HoosierFather]

Lisa Myers on PMSNBC this morning said the NJ Supremes have more Dim appointees. Torch and McGreevy seem pretty smug that they can break the NJ election law and re-write the ballots with Menendez (or some other NJ Dim replacement). My guess is they have these judges in the back pocket, otherwise they would not be trying this tactic.

[Linda Liberty]

There is no way the US supremes are going to comment
on this case. If they did, they'd deserve all the abuse
that was heaped on them after Florida, but they're too
smart for that. If they did, btw, they'd hand the
election to the democrats, and not just the NJ election.

[twigs]

I didn't know that. Thanks for the update. I agree with you that they wouldn't have tried this if they didn't have a reasonable belief that they could succeed. I listened to a NJ reporter on O'Reilly last night who had investigated Torch. He said that Torch was the quintessential deal maker and that was the reason he wasn't prosecuted before. Let's hope this ends up before the US Supreme Court and they have the courage to subject themselves to leftist claims that they are manipulating elections if they decide to uphold the law as written.

[xzins]

There is no way the US supremes are going to comment on this case.

I absolutely disagree. They are charged with overseeing the constitution and the provisions thereof. One provision regards national level elections, and they will not allow shenanigans with national-level elections.

Since the majority is Republican, then they would FIX shenanigans from a republican world-view.

They would deserve abuse if they let timidity prevent them from correcting a clear abuse of a national level election.

[RooRoobird14]

Fox News reported this morning that as of 3 weeks ago there is one more Democrat on the NJ State Supreme Court than there are Republicans (5-4 I believe).

Regardless of how clear the law is, it wouldn't shock me if the Scum machine cranked into full gear and--VOILA--The NJ Supreme Court ruled to allow the Scums to CHEAT AT THE POLLS ONCE AGAIN. Par for the course for those morally bankrupt @ssh*les........

[Greeklawyer]

What about the absentee ballots?

There are people who have voted already based of the post 51 day ballot. How will those people get to "recast" their ballots? It is not just Nov 5, voting HAS BEEN occuring. Voter disenfranchisement is happening again. What about the NJ millitary votes, are the Dems going to object to military voting AGAIN?

[rintense]

Yep. I read that even Tom Russert said the Dems are in charge of all elections in NJ- Attn. Gen, Gov., and SCONJ.

[rintense]

Well, didn't Torch say he filed with the SCOTUS to have his name removed? If this is the case, that makes the SCONJ irrelevant. This will ultimately end up on with the SCOTUS anyway.