NJ Supreme Court Hearing Live Thread

New Jersey Public TV ^ | 10/02/02 | TonyInOhio

[gridlock]

60/37 now

Bump

Poll

[princess leah]

I think those people who contributed to the Torch's campaign ought to demand their contributions refunded back to them!

[connectthedots]

The US SC is fortunate to have Congressman BillyBob to do the legwork on their ultimate opinion and relieve the justices and their clerks of much hard work. As those who followed the good Congressman's work related to the Bush v. Gore cases, the US SC adopted his arguments pretty much as presented in both cases.

For that reason, I have great confidence that Forrester will prevail at the US SC if the NJ SC is so foolish as to ignore the most basic principles of constitutional and statutory construction.

[tomkat]

quite often lately there's a feeling of having awakened in a foreign land ...

[Congressman Billybob]

Thanks for your (excessive) praise. In Bush-Gore I, the Supreme Court did, unanimously, what I suggested. But I have zero proof that they did it because of my suggestion. That's obvious coincidence, but not proof.

I'll do my best on this case, along with a lot of smart lawyers who are far closer to the center of action than I am. I believe our efforts will be successful. (Of course, this assumes that the NJ SC will throw out NJ law as being "inconvenient.")

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

Click for "Death as a Political Strategy"

[connectthedots]

Thanks for your (excessive) praise. In Bush-Gore I, the Supreme Court did, unanimously, what I suggested. But I have zero proof that they did it because of my suggestion. That's obvious coincidence, but not proof.

You are correct that it was not proof that they ruled as they did because of your suggestion, but it is proof that you were right on the law and the constitution. My main point being that your analysis of the present case must be given great weight based on your briefs in the Bush v. Gore cases.

Should the Democrats prevail in the NJ SC, I suspect the US SC will need little time to reverse such a mockery of justice. It would be a far more egregious decision than even those of the FL SC.

[rb22982]

LOL

[tomkat]

this thread says the decision is out and the socialist thieves won w/a unanimous decision.

hate to say i told ya so, but ...

[Helms]

Hey, I guess were were wrong but are now wiser.

[Spiff]

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.

And I think this is why, even though it will anger some of us hardcore, take-no-prisoners Republicans here, that this decision will NOT be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Republicans are just going to have to gamble that Forrester can beat the cheaters in the General Election. If they do anything else, it will be checkmate. This way, the Republicans are still in the game until the General Election. AND with a Republican majority in the Senate (hoping we win seats elsewhere) the Senate can refuse to seat the cheater.

[Spiff]

2) change the law after the election to make the deadline hard and fast,

The deadline already is hard and fast - but when the Democrats and their bee-yatches on the NJ Kangaroo Court are willing to destroy the Rule of Law (just like the Democrats and their bee-yatches on the SCOFLaw were) you can't hold anybody to anything.

[Alberta's Child]

I think you make a good point. I would also add that if the Democrats were willing to go to these lengths to get Maximus Rectus Torricellius off the ballot, they must have had a sense that the other Senate races are not going very well for them.

[alnick]

Oh okay. I was thinking about the Supreme Court. Judge Sauls is my hero. I remember Beck now. :-)