US Supremes can't appeal NJSC

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

[MortMan]

But who's going to trust the Torch to actually resign?

[Peach]

Your three good reasons for the USSC to get involved makes sense to me. Let's hope the USSC, if necessary, has the guts to take the issue on, knowing they will take another public relations hit for getting involved in a federal elections process. It's all about image these days, not law.

[Quilla]

Chavez' statement totally contradicts Judge Andrew Napolitano's (sp) opinion on Fox earlier this morning. He mentioned that the case could go all the way to the U.S. Supremes. (He is/was a judge in New Jersey.)

[Lion's Cub]

I'm no lawyer, either; but, since this is a FEDERAL election, I would think the USSC would have jurisdiction. If this were an election for a State Senate seat, then I'm not so sure.

[Peach]

And it will work, & Linda Chavez, much as I respect her, is wrong this time

Much as I like Linda, I hope she's wrong, too. There are way too many people getting air time to discuss issues they don't know anything about.

[The G Man]

I don't think we should take Linda's word

Peach:

My apologies. Didn't mean for that to come across as being directed at you. I'm interested in knowing Lindas opinion, but some folks on the thread went into "the sky is falling" / "its all over" mode when Linda is just giving her opinion, rather than reporting fact.

Sorry again.

G

[17th Miss Regt]

I think you are right. Now recall a (rather scurrilous) thread yesterday by some black liberal saying that the onus of the fighting in Iraq would be by minorities. Using this logic, we can assume that the ballots sent to the military are primariliy ballots sent to minority servicemen and servicewomen. With ballots already having been returned, some of the servicemembers will be 'disenfranchised' by this move. Thus, the democrats seek to circumvent the Civil Rights Act in order to deprive minorities and women of their right to choose.

[isthisnickcool]

Where did Linda Chavez get her law degree from?

[xzins]

I tend to agree that Lauterburg getting his name on the ballot is not a matter for the Scotus. However, there is the issue of the absentee ballots involving the US Military and other Americans overseas working in federal jobs that flip this to the scotus IF there is no REAL provision made for the military.

You can't just cancel the votes made by saying "count them as they are." If the military has ONLY the choice of Torch/Forest, then so should everyone (equal protection.) If everyone else gets the REAL choice of Lauter/Forest, then so should the military AND in a timely way to have their ballots delivered and processed within the time constraints of the law.

Imho, There must be nothing: postal stamps, authentication, times, choices, etc., that can render a military ballot ineffective as a RESULT of this change from Torch to Lauter.

[Peach]

You don't need to apologize for anything. I probably should have written the headline as an opinion piece, rather than the way I did. I'm so ticked off, I'm not thinking clearly!

[The G Man]

*** UPDATE ***

Former Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan, currently deceased, has indicated that he has no intention of having his remains moved to New Jersey for purposes of succeeding Toricelli, according to various paranormal mediums and ouiji boards.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming ...

[2timothy3.16]

More lies from the media. FoxNews IS one of them. Don't be confused by there "vaguely" conservative tone. All we have left for the truth is the Internet and Talk Radio. Nothing else remains.....

You, my young Kentuckian, are absolutley right! The Lord bless you.

[krodriguesdc]

pure BULL - SCOTUS has jurisdiction in cases as these and can intervene...

also on a separate note - girl friend told me an interesting tidbit of info yesterday that she had been informed from another friend that the gay media is behind the intense Islamic bashing that has been on going on TV and in the newspapers...

she added that the Saudi's are aware and that they have discussed this with G2...

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...

HMMMM...

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Last night on Fox News Channel Judge Andrew Napolitano (sp) said the exact opposite. He predicted the NJ court would rule for the democRATS and SCOTUS would overturn along the same lines as the 2000 Florida fiasco...

[Carry_Okie]

In my view, the correct thing to do is to let Toricelli's name remain on the ballot. If his candidacy wins, the governor appoints Lautenberg (or whoever). If the Slave Party loses, then obviously Forrester would be the Senator.

[Peach]

Very good - I needed a laugh. Between the three traitors in Iraq over the weekend and The Torch matter, I'm beyond ticked off. BTW, if someone wants to have the Moderator take this thread away, it's cool with me. I don't want people having a heart attack when they see the headline. Don't know how to get moderator's attention. Suggestions?

[b4its2late]

Yep. Heard her on Hannity yesterday. It's a state matter she says and the NY SC will write their own law, 4 to 3 from the bench. It's the only way the libs can get their agenda through. But maybe, just maybe, the NJ voters will see the BS.

[Brices Crossroads]

I have not researched this, but I do believe that changing the rules in the middle of the race would permit the USSC to intervene, as they did in the 2000 Presidential election. There have been other congressional elections which have precipitated fedreral court involvement, many of which were cited in the Bush-Gore legal briefs. Article I of the Constitution governs congressional elections, so there is colorable federal jurisdiction. 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.

[Peach]

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?

[Trust but Verify]

This is comical. First of all, it isn't Linda Chavez it's Linda Vester.

Secondly, she is reporting what she has been told, presumably by a legal authority. For anyone to think this is Linda Vester's opinion says a lot about our view of today's media. She is a reporter, not a legal expert.