NJ Supreme Court Hearing Live Thread

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

[Huck]

There's a CSPAN 3?

[TheDon]

Supreme Court Motion in the Matter of the New Jersey US Senate Election

[twigs]

huge advantage it would give them when the new campaign laws kick into effect. As long as they wait until they are into the 60 day period before the elections, only the media will be allowed to comment on the candidate.

My word. I never thought about that. This is a very frightening precedent-setting issue indeed. Thanks for the commentary.

[dawn53]

I have thought about this thing this morning, and am optimistic that this Supreme Court will refuse to be known in legal circles, and in law books from now on, as the "Toricelli Exception" court. I just don't think they want their good reputations linked with the crook, no matter whether the ruling has substance or not.

Good point!

I also think that even there is a remote possibility that this could end up at the SCOTUS, no state Supreme Court would want to get reprimanded by the SCOTUS like the Florida Supreme Court was.

[TheConservator]

Justice (Abbon?) asks if Rat argument is accepted, where do they draw the line?

Sure sounds like the Justices are very skeptical of Rat argument to me. (He he).

[Stultis]

q- If not following statute, where do we draw the line?

a- What matters is the "overall objective" of the election laws. (IOW, you judges decide)

[Oldeconomybuyer]

DNC Lawyer - Voters have an "over-arching" right to have competitive elections...

[Alberta's Child]

#4 is the most concise point. I would add the following:

If the court supports the Democratic Party's bid to have a new candidate placed on the ballot, it will have effectively decided that the nomination of candidates by political parties is unconstitutional because political parties clearly cannot be trusted to respect the rights of voters. What this means, in essence, is that every election in the state of New Jersey becomes an open election in which anyone who can garner 5,000 signatures (or one signature, if the court's ruling is interpreted literally) can be placed on the ballot.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

DNC lawyer is getting HAMMERED ...

[piasa]

Too bad we can't loan New Jersey that great American, Judge Sauls... he wouldn't show up late and he's the type to serve his country instead of serving the Party...

[hchutch]

Allow me to re-write to coorrect Demoncrap spin:
"We want the right to pull a bait-and-switch."

If a business did this, it would rightfully be shut down and the owners would be lucky not to be in a 8-foot by 10-foot cell with a guy who says, "My name is Spike, honey."

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

DEM.: "I would suggest that the court do..."

and the judge is listening. Crap. How long did they plan this? The DNC lawyer is a smooth liar. The decision should be based on "If it can be fixed, it should be fixed," according to the Dem.

NJSC looked bad...no more C-Span feed. Surprise.

[freedomcrusader]

DemonRAT lawyer arguing that criterion for arbitrarily replacing candidates on ballots is "IF you can fix it, fix it." Maybe subconsciously, he was thinking about elections when he made that statement, as opposed to ballots.

[Fred Mertz]

http://www.c-span.org/watch/

Watch or listen. I'm listening on C-SPAN3.

[The Wizard]

From what I saw on CSPAM is the judges are not buying the democrats lies

[tomkat]

so of course cspam cuts away to the daily house circlejerk ...

[Mo1]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[VRWC_minion]

Sure sounds like the Justices are very skeptical of Rat argument to me. (He he).

The questions doesn't mean they are for or against. In fact they may be for it but want help in answering the objections.

[freedomcrusader]

Judge: "You're asking us to assign no weight to reason for switch."

[mwl1]

Is DNC lawyer being hammered by one justice, or several justices?