Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Supremes can't appeal NJSC
Linda Chavez, Fox News | October 2, 2002 | Fox News

Posted on 10/02/2002 4:59:02 AM PDT by Peach

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-162 next last
To: Peach
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.

There is no provision for "appointing" a Representative. The vacancy must be filled by special election. Votes for a deceased Representative should be thrown out.

41 posted on 10/02/2002 5:40:19 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Somehow I suspect this is incorrect and the US Supremes may take this case if the current election law is overturned on this basis.
42 posted on 10/02/2002 5:40:58 AM PDT by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
This is comical. First of all, it isn't Linda Chavez it's Linda Vester.

This morning at 7:55 a.m. EST, Linda CHAVEZ was being interviewed by E.D. and group about the three DNC traitors in Iraq and about the New Jersey matter. She was asked about the nanny issue that precluded her appointment to the Bush cabinet.

43 posted on 10/02/2002 5:41:21 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SternTrek
"if he wins he promises to resign the seat and McGreevy appoints Lautenberg."

Why would the Torch resign after winning? Would you turn back your winnings if you won the lottery?
44 posted on 10/02/2002 5:43:07 AM PDT by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
OldFriend, since calming down and reading all the posts on this thread, I've come to agree with you. The USSC will take this on, if necessary. I should have presented the title as an opinion piece so Freepers don't have a heart attack when logging on this a.m. Anyone want to delete the thread, feel free to contact moderator. Won't hurt my feelings.
45 posted on 10/02/2002 5:43:23 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
If it's Vester saying it today, Chavez was on Hannity yesterday and said the same thing. Maybe they're wrong... I'm hoping.
46 posted on 10/02/2002 5:44:22 AM PDT by b4its2late
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Can the the NJSC delay the date of the election? Or is that mandated by Federal Law? I'm thinking of how the Florida SC was able to change the dates for recounts and the like.

For example, could they order that the election be pushed back a month to allow new ballots to be printed? I could imagine them saying something to the effect that everything just needs to be done by the time the next congress begins so there will be no harm / no foul.

Heres to hoping I'm wrong (again)

47 posted on 10/02/2002 5:45:07 AM PDT by The G Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Here's a more FR legal discussion
48 posted on 10/02/2002 5:46:07 AM PDT by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YoungKentuckyConservative
All we have left for the truth is the Internet and Talk Radio.

Oh yeah! Never any falsehoods on the Internet or talk radio? I think we had two good examples of hoaxes on the Internet yesterday.

49 posted on 10/02/2002 5:46:55 AM PDT by lonestar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Don't know the answers to your questions but imagine an activist court could do anything it wants. Do you think they'll make a decision today?
50 posted on 10/02/2002 5:49:15 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
It was Chavez saying it today. Perhaps Vester said it yesterday. But Chavez was not only talking about this issue this morning at 7:55 a.m. EST, but was also talking about the "nanny problem" she had that kept her off President Bush's cabinet. We aren't crazy (yet).
51 posted on 10/02/2002 5:50:37 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Nah, they can't decide it today. They have to go through the motions and pretend they're impartially reviewing the law for a few days before ruling in the Dems favor.
52 posted on 10/02/2002 5:50:43 AM PDT by The G Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Credo
I don't believe there are any constitution requirements regarding candidate changes just prior to an election.

They have to make it a constitutional issue to go to the US Supreme Court.

Equal protection under the law might be an issue… You can't waive laws for some and not others. If they waive the law here they will have to waive it period. The candidate quit which should not be sufficient cause because it was a voluntary action.
53 posted on 10/02/2002 5:51:13 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GirlShortstop
Thanks for the link; will scroll over there for a quick scroll before I hop out for a hair appt. and lunch with a friend. What was I thinking? I want to hear all the commentary today and wish we could watch the NJSC on tv live.
54 posted on 10/02/2002 5:52:03 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Nah, they can't decide it today. They have to go through the motions and pretend they're impartially reviewing the law for a few days before ruling in the Dems favor

Sounds right - give the appearance of impartially reviewing the law and all will be right in the land. Appearance is everything today.

55 posted on 10/02/2002 5:53:30 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Wednesday, 2 October, 2002, 04:48 GMT 05:48 UK US court accepts Senate case

The New Jersey State Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments from Democrat politicians who want to replace their candidate for the US Senate.

Scandal-hit Senator Robert Torricelli abruptly pulled out of the November election on Monday - after the deadline for candidates to submit their names for the ballot paper.

Mr Torricelli missed the deadline for changing candidates

His Republican opponents argue that he may not be replaced, saying ballot papers have been printed and distributed and some postal votes have already been received.

But the Democrats - who hold a one-seat majority in the US Senate - are keen to offer voters a replacement for Mr Torricelli.

The court issued an order saying it would hear the case directly instead of waiting for a lower court to act, accepting a Democratic submission which stressed the urgency of the matter.

The high court hearing is scheduled for Wednesday morning.

New candidate named

The Democrats picked a former Senator, Frank Lautenberg, to replace Mr Torricelli, who ended his campaign in an emotional speech.

Correspondents say Democrats were concerned for Mr Torricelli's re-election chances after allegations from businessman David Chang who said he gave the senator gifts in return for his intervention in business deals in North and South Korea.

The people of New Jersey have had enough of playing politics with the fundamental tenets of democracy.

Mr Torricelli - who was elected in 1996 - has denied any illegality but was admonished over the summer by the Senate ethics committee.

Mr Lautenberg, who feuded openly with Mr Torricelli who was his Senate colleague until he retired at the elections two years ago, said he was hoping to get his name on the ballot paper.

"I look forward to this campaign, in some ways rather perversely, it will be the shortest campaign I've ever been engaged in, but I sort of like the prospects," he said.

'Potential for chaos'

The Republican candidate for the Senate, Doug Forrester, said: "In 36 days, decency, fairness and the rule of the law will trump this desperate attempt to retain power.

"The people of New Jersey have had enough of playing politics with the fundamental tenets of democracy."

It's all about ensuring that the voters of this state have the opportunity to exercise a choice in a competitive race .

Democrat campaign lawyer Angelo Genova His campaign's lawyer, Bill Baroni, said the case created "a potential for chaos".

"Ballots have been printed in many counties," he said.

"Absentee ballots have been sent, and even more troubling, federal oversees military ballots have been mailed. Votes have been received."

Printing of ballots has now been halted with some analysts saying the case could end up before the US Supreme Court in circumstances reminiscent of the controversial 2000 presidential election in Florida.

'Technicality'

A lawyer for the Democratic Party in New Jersey, Angelo Genova, said the deadline for candidates pulling out was merely a technicality, adding that there was a 1952 precedent for changing names, allowed when a candidate died.

"It's all about ensuring that the voters of this state have the opportunity to exercise a choice in a competitive race," he said.

"The two-party system that affords people such a choice should not be compromised by any legal niceties or other administrative technicalities in our law."

The Democrats currently hold 50 Senate seats, with Republicans controlling 49 Senate seats and Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, formerly a Republican, declared as an independent.

here's the link...


56 posted on 10/02/2002 5:54:07 AM PDT by krodriguesdc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
For Bush I believe the argument was the equal protection clause of the constitution. Basically you can't change the law after the fact and it has to apply equally to everyone.
57 posted on 10/02/2002 5:54:15 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: blam
"The answer to this is so simple, i don't know why any of these bozos haven't proposed it yet. Torrecelli's name stays on the ballot, if he wins he promises to resign the seat and McGreevy appoints Lautenberg. "

That proposition was in the NRO article Rush cited yesterday.

58 posted on 10/02/2002 5:54:46 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I assume you really mean NOT close, as in the Republican candidate is losing big. The argument being why not just dump him or her and try someone else because there is nothing to lose anyway.
59 posted on 10/02/2002 5:56:56 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DB
here is what CBS is reporting:

The Republicans want a state supreme court to stick to the narrow letter of the law and enforce a technicality. The Democrats want a State Supreme Court to look at the dispute within the broader context of New Jersey's statutory election scheme and age-old voting rights cases. The dispute could end up at the United States Supreme Court. The political balance in Washington could be at stake. Is there a law somewhere that says that every second autumn the nation has to go through one of these nearly farcical juris-political skirmishes?

here's the link...


60 posted on 10/02/2002 5:59:50 AM PDT by krodriguesdc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-162 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson