Skip to comments.
NJ Supreme Court Hearing Live Thread
New Jersey Public TV ^
| 10/02/02
| TonyInOhio
Posted on 10/02/2002 7:04:20 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,221-1,240, 1,241-1,260, 1,261-1,280, 1,281-1,293 next last
To: blackdog
Cool. Today is our 20th wedding anniversary, too. WIladyconservative and me. October 2, 1982. Congratulations!
To: Alberta's Child
According to my sources the NJ Supreme Court decision is not a done deal (as far as the Democrats are concerned). Word is that if this attempt to put Lautenberg on the ballot fails, then Torricelli is going to resign and McGreevey is going to name Lautenberg as his replacement. The next major court battle is going to be over whether McGreevey can schedule a special election after November 5th.
That's a non-starter. If Torricelli is on the ballot, then there is an election on November 5. There is no reason to delay the voting, because the mechanisms of voting are already in place. Lautenberg is not damaged because he has no standing in whether or not the voting takes place on November 5. Having the Senate seat does not equate to an automatic right to defend the Senate seat.
The 'Rats have a candidate. His name is Robert Torricelli. They are just going to have to live with that fact.
To: XJarhead
"...make the deadline hard and fast."
There is no hard and fast for the corrupt democrats. If they get away with this, the "law" will become whatever they say to win. There will be no more fighting within the system. It will all be a giant fraud.
The dems must not be allowed to get away with this. "Politics is war by other means." The democrat party understands this much better than the pubbies.
To: gridlock
The scenario I presented here is more likely to pass any legal scrutiny than what they are pursuing now.
The issue that is now before the court is nothing more than an attempt to have the NJ Supreme Court ignore the laws of the state of New Jersey. Plan B would be fully legal from both a federal and state perspective.
If Torricelli were to resign, then McGreevey has the authority to name his replacement. Torricelli may still end up being the Democratic candidate on November 5th, but a second round of legal proceedings will move forward to determine if McGreevey has the authority to call for a special election.
To: The Vast Right Wing
about 3 weeks to go that Forrester is consideringThe NJSC clearly established that a major consideration in allowing this to happen is if there is enough time to redo the ballot preparation. Clearly this would be the measurement for any future cases of this kind.
NJSC cleverly made this an administrative restriction only. Any future consideration for ballot changing after the 51 day rule will be decided on two things: (1) Is it a demo? (2) Is there enough time and money to accomplish this.
To: rstevens
Any timeframe on a decision? I heard on Hannity that it should come down this evening.
To: js1138
The point should be glaringly embarrasing for the justices if they over rule a law that they don't claim to be unconstutional. That would be a interferring with another branch of the government.
To: gridlock
I think they might have to break all eleven of tourch's thumbs to get him to resign. Suppose he did? If he stays on the ballot and loses, there's no need for a special election. If he stays on the ballot and wins, there's no reason for him to resign a second time. He's in.
To: Catspaw
When a case is decided by the highest court in a state, the next step is a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court, asking them to take the case. I am currently rough-drafting a brief for the Supreme Court in favor of Forrester, on the assumption that the US SC will take the case, and give counsel about 48 hours to file their briefs. If I get to file one, it will be an amicus curia (friend of the Court) brief on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union. (Do not misread that. Robert Bork is on their Policy Board. They are the opposite of the ACLU.
Congressman Billybob
Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."
Click for "to Restore Trust in America"
Click for "Death as a Political Strategy"
To: scannell
over rule a law that they don't claim to be unconstutional...what happened in Florida is the judges asserted that other parts of the state constitution guaranteed certain protections to the voters. This might make sense if someone became ill or died.
To: Alberta's Child
... a second round of legal proceedings will move forward to determine if McGreevey has the authority to call for a special election. And it will be a non-starter. If it is found that Torricelli cannot withdraw from the ballot, then whether or not he is in the Senate at the time is immaterial. He will be on the ballot and there will be an election on November 5.
If McGreevey appoints a Senator for Torricelli's unexpired term, that term ends on January 1, 2003. There is no need to call a special election for that short amount of time. If McGreevey really wants to call a special election to decide who will be our Junior Senator for the month of December 2002, I guess he is welcome to do so. But on January 1, 2003, the winner of Forrester/Torricelli will be sworn in.
Of course, this is contingent on the NJSC not allowing a sustitution on the ballot. If they allow that, we really do live in a banana republic and all bets are off.
To: SternTrek
Have to give the rat-judges time to read all the comments from their phone poll. ;)
To: js1138
Assuming that the GOP loses in the NJSC, they not only appeal directly to the US Supremes, they yank Forrester and petition the NJ Supremes to substitute Guiliani or Kean for Forrester. What do we have to lose? Nothing. The media firestorm would benefit us. How could the RATS possibly complain?
Why we continue to show up at a knife fight with water pistols is beyond me.
1,273
posted on
10/02/2002 1:53:45 PM PDT
by
mwl1
To: gridlock
As a thought experiment, suppose an incumbent loses an election. Could he resign during the lame-duck session and have the Governor replace him and schedule a special election?
The answer is obviously no, because his term ends at the end of the lame duck session, so no special election is required.
What changes if the resignation happens just before the election?
Nothing.
To: Congressman Billybob
If you have the opportunity to file your amicus brief, please post it on FR after you file, please? I'd like to read it.
To: gridlock
If McGreevey appoints a Senator for Torricelli's unexpired term, that term ends on January 1, 2003. There is no need to call a special election for that short amount of time. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet that the statute giving the governor the power to appoint a replacement makes no reference whatsoever to what constitutes a "short" period of time.
I'm not saying that they'd be successful, but if the Democrats can get this much mileage despite a statutory deadline that is set in stone, you can bet your @ss they are going to pursue Plan B to the end.
To: Alberta's Child
If Torriccelli resigns from the senate in disgrace, does he get to keep his pension and all the rest of the perks that our imperial senate give themselves?
To: Hitlerys uterus
To: SternTrek
59 to 38 now.
To: Alberta's Child
Hey, if McGreevey wants to go through the trouble and expense of holding a special election to determine who will be the Junior Senator from New Jersey for the month of December 2002, I guess that's his perogative. But on January 1, 2003, the new Senator will be sworn in.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,221-1,240, 1,241-1,260, 1,261-1,280, 1,281-1,293 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson