US Supremes can't appeal NJSC

Linda Chavez, Fox News | October 2, 2002 | Fox News

[concerned about politics]

She said federal law does not have jurisdiction over state election law.

What about the militaries right to vote? If they don't get corrected ballots in time to vote, then what? Maybe a military man voted for Toricelli, but would never, ever, vote for his replacement. Wouldn't that deny him/her a choice to vote for another?

[js1138]

evidently, the gays seeing an opportunity to bash a religion that has zero tolerance for gays decided to lambaste Islam in an effort to turn public opinion against the religion...

Are you trying to tell me that the al Quaeda isn't a sandbath club?

[hobbes1]

Don't know how to get moderator's attention. Suggestions?

Just Ping, Peach

[VRWC_minion]

I haven't thought through how an equal rights complaint could be raised by the Republican party. Any ballots already cast for Forrester could be counted for Forrester;

Two areas of concern. Those who voted for Forrester who would have voted for a RAT other than the Torch. Also, those who could have joined the race after the deadline when they saw Torricelli vulnerable but instead relied on the deadline.

[FreeMe2]

You're right, Oldeconomybuyer - I heard Napolitano say that too. I should have made the title an opinion piece and don't want anyone having a heart attack over the current title. Okay with me if thread goes away. BTW, anyone know if the court hearing today is going to be televised locally or via satellite?

Judge Napolitano is a New Jersey Judge....

I would say he is pretty credible on this issue...

[socal_parrot]

On his show yesterday, national talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who also teaches constitutional law at Chapman University, said he believes that the SCOTUS will not hear any appeal if the NJSC sides with the Dems.

[jackbill]

That's basically what the DNC is doing in Hawaii. The congresswoman who died will remain on the ballot and if she wins, an appointment will be made by the DNC.

Nobody, but nobody, can make an "appointment" to the House of Representatives. If Mink stays on the ballot and wins, the Governor of Hawaii will have to call a special election.

Check out Article 1, Section 2

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

[1L]

Whether the USSC will intervene is another question. But I don't think there is much doubt that they could do so without twisting the Constitution one bit.

I agree. There is no doubt there is a federal question involved.

[dennisw]

 

 

Most of the justices were appointed by Republicans. 3 by Christine Todd Whitman.

 

 

SUPREME COURT

	From left to right, top row, Justice Jaynee La Vecchia, Justice Virginia Long, Justice Peter G. Verniero, Justice James R. Zazzali; bottom row, Justice Gary S. Stein, Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz, Justice James H. Coleman, Jr.
Supreme Court Justices' Biographies Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz Justice Gary S. Stein Justice James H. Coleman Jr. Justice Virginia Long Justice Peter G. Verniero Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice James R. Zazzali

[jackbill]

More lies from the media. FoxNews IS one of them. Don't be confused by there "vaguely" conservative tone.

Don't get your knickers twisted. Fox News didn't say this. A guest, Linda Chavez, did. And she's not a lawyer.

[1Old Pro]

Surprise outcome: They will rule Lousenberg "incompetent" and unfit for office. Sheesh, I listened to his announcement speech and was astounded by his incoherency. Did anyone even tell him about the potential war in IRAQ? One would think that a person living in N.J. would have been aware of the terrorist attacks as well.

All he said, and he didn't do a good job, is that he is against pollution, for a women's right to have unfettered abortions, and that Republicans are evil and only New Jersey can prevent the GOP takeover of the Senate.

[hobbes1]

Vote for Forrester and tell the Democrats "Tricks are for Kids".

[jackbill]

If Forrester wins New Jersey has a new senator!

Yes and no. It gets us past the first and worst hurdle, but then we have to face the Torch will resign scenario, which is more politically dangerous for the RATS.

If Forrester wins, it's over.

If Torricelli resigns from the Senate, McGreevy can name a successor but the successor's term ends in January 2003. It's in the Constitution. Senatorial terms are six years. Period.

[WilliamWallace1999]

Thanks....

[jackbill]

Linda Chavez does not have a law degree. She has a BA and "graduate studies".

[txrangerette]

To play devil's advocate, suppose it's
ruled ok for some voters to miss out
on a new, real ballot--just because in
this case they voted for Forrestor. If
allowed, all future cases must allow
it.

Imagine a future case. The voters and
candidates aren't so polarized. Some
Repubs & Indys might vote Dem; some
Dems & Indys might vote Repub. WOULD
ALL DEPEND ON WHO WAS RUNNING! Now do
you, or don't you, have a legal issue
when ballot names differ for various
groups of voters?

I think you do.

Try this. John McCain moves to NJ &
runs as a Dem. Or John Breaux or Zell
Miller. Let's say Christie Whitman is
the Repub. Senate candidate. So Torch
gets off the ballot, a new Dem like
one of the above gets on. Whoops! is
right!

Anything could happen! What if voters
didn't all get the same ballot???????

[Mo1]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!. 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

[betty boop]

[Chavez] said federal law does not have jurisdiction over state election law.

Peach, I'm wondering whether this is the case. For one thing, a race for U.S. Senator is a federal, not a state election. Thus presumably federal rules take precedence. It's an Article VI kind of thing (i.e., the "supremacy clause"). I believe SCOTUS could hear an appeal -- if someone brings one, and they wanted to hear it. My guess is they would want to: It's basically the same kind of situation that we had down in Florida in 2000 -- rejiggering of the rules of the game after the game had already started, but was shaping up as a loss for the Democrat candidate. (I guess the Dims are so increasingly irrelevant that the only way they can "win" is by cheating.) But I really don't know -- we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

[Polybius]

To play Devil's Advocate, exactly how is the Foresster camp going to argue that they are being harmed by the not having the choice to vote for Lautenburg. Those opposing the switch in candidates werent going to vote for Toricelli or Launtenburg.

Those opposing the switch are, of course, Republicans that will vote for the Republican candidate.

The issue is not that the switch is harming the Republicans right to vote for Forrester. The issue is that the switch is harming the Republican's likelyhood of winning.

Election are not decided by taking a statewide census of how many Democrat and Republicans there are. They are decided by how many Democrats, Republicans and Every Other Party voters actually get off their duffs and go to the trouble of casting a ballot.

Whether the voters get off their duffs and cast ballots for a certain candidate has a lot to do with who the candidate is. With Toricelli on the ballot, many Democrats may stay home in disgust and many Independent voters may vote for the Republican candidate.

You don't change the rules of baseball in the bottom of the 9th inning of a game and allow the top of the batting order to bat out of turn just because the home team is losing and their 7th, 8th and 9th batters are scheduled to bat. Such a move did not deprive the visiting team of the right to bat in the 9th inning but is does the deprive them of their right to play a fair game and decreases their likelihood of winning.

[jackbill]

Judge Napolitano is a New Jersey Judge....

I believe that the operative word is "WAS". He's a former NJ Superior Court.