Posted on 10/02/2002 7:04:20 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
New Jersey Public TV is carrying this hearing live. Click on Watch Live Online, and post what you hear, here.
Tony
They effectively are closing any loop holes for any other candidates or parties to attempt the same bait and switch schemes. Henchforth, they will merely measure whether or not the clerks can fullfill this task. So the dem's will be successfull in this attempt, but it will end there.
Correct--Dems and the County Clerk lawyer want a decision ASAP
2. the other parties did a great job discussing fairness
All but the Conservative guy who got bogged down in details about 51 days not being set in stone
3. the dems suggested a color coded ballot system to override the 51 day law?
I think a Justice (the woman who talked the most) may have "suggested" this (how convienient!)
4. probably will go to ussc soon..regardless of how the sc rules.
Not sure about this...I think Forrester might keep out of the fray, as someone just suggested, he can go after the "selected" cadidate that was forced onto the dem voters, without their say (esp. good, as Torecelli reportedly hates Lautenberg--Torch lovers might be really pissed)
Do it on the narrow ground of disenfranchising military voters who have already voted. That makes it more difficult to demonize Forrester for appealing.
The Supremes will refuse to hear the case. But what that does is help reverse the perception that SCOTUS were just whores for Republicans, because they turned down a chance to "interfere" in another election. And you could even get someone like Scalia to write an opinion saying that it shouldn't be taken because, unlike Bush v. Gore, there wasn't a federal issue involved.
It's listed under the stories about Dems go to Court, click on Survey.
Presently 89% voting no one should replace the Torch, miniscule amounts for other choices like Palone, Laudenberg, etc.
It is clear by the questions that the only decision that has not been made is HOW, not whether.
No question the 'Pubbies have to tread carefully and avoid any bad sound bites. I'm not sure the 'Pubbie lawyer was successful at that, though. I thought he sounded like an idiot, and unprepared to boot.
I don't agree that the minor party candidates have the least to lose, at least in the long run. As I said in an earlier post, they would have been held to every jot and tittle of the statute had they asked for a substitution (and so would the 'Pubbies for that matter). The only protection against being kept off the ballot altogether that the minor parties have is the strict and fair enforcement of the rules.
To answer your earlier question, I do think this will go to the Supremes, but I'm not sure that's a good idea. This really is a mess.
They should be watching Fort Marcy Park.
What happens if some clerks claim they cannot fulfill this tasks(s)?
Oooohhhh, that's GOOD!
*screeching Justice voice* "What's the difference between 35 days and 29 days?!?"
/screeching>
As far as strict and fair enforcement of the rules I think the best shot we have lies with Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas, et.al..
Ah, but there is a Federal Issue --- Senators are Federal offices. Their election is not supposed to be corrupt.
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.