NJ Supreme Court Hearing Live Thread

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

[TonyInOhio]

New Jersey Public TV is carrying this hearing live. Click on Watch Live Online, and post what you hear, here.

Tony

[TonyInOhio]

Lunchtime for me. Take over. :-)

[XJarhead]

I disagree. This is a federal issue and SCOTUS will apply the rule announced in Bush v. Gore: states do have certain powers to set election laws but once they establish their election system they cannot change it in mid-stream.

I'm a Repub lawyer, but I disagree with your disagreement. At this stage of the game, this is a state issue and not a federal one. I really doubt the Supremes would take it. If they did, my guess is that it'd be a 9-0 affirmance of the NJSC -- as long as they get around the absentee issue.

[Torie]

Where is this policy set forth in the law?

[alnick]

The Torch is ineliigible to serve...now they're saying, but he didn't die (brough up Carnahan case) or have a catastrophy...

Well why the hell was he eligible to serve until his poll numbers took a dive?

[rintense]

I agree. Now saying it's differing policy between parties, and is saying that the DEMS case is stronger!!! This is a frickin episode of the Twilight Zone!!!!!

[twyn1]

very hostile...insisting that there must be a two-party election (never mind about those other "little" weirdo parties) but not taking into account AT ALL that the "losing" cadidate chose to take himself out...thus creating the problem that they need remedy for...this is a very slippery slope....

[TonyInOhio]

BTW, glad you're here.

[1Old Pro]

LOL, the GOP guy says this court wants to re-write laws !!!

[KC_Conspirator]

Equal protection not an issue? The last time a state court said this the SCOTUS said 7-2 that it was a direct vilation of the Constitution. Although I think the fix is in on this kangaroo court, I have to remember that the Clintonized democrats have never won battles in court.

[Numbers Guy]

This is a federal issue and SCOTUS will apply the rule announced in Bush v. Gore: states do have certain powers to set election laws but once they establish their election system they cannot change it in mid-stream

That Federal law cited in Bush v. Gore applied to presidential elections, not Senate elections.

Look, the NJSC is being ridiculous here, no doubt about it, but the USSC is not going to see irreparable harm in allowing the election to go forward. The vast majority of stupid state court decisions are not reviewed by the USSC. Florida was different due to the stakes and due to the fact that there was a clear-cut Federal law covering presidential elections.

You raise a good point about appearances (2nd time in two years ruling against the Dems), but I doubt that even the most conservative justices will want to bother with an emergency appeal on this one. It just isn't that important compared to other issues on their agenda.

The GOP should file the perfunctory appeals of course, but should concentrate its resources on winning the race.

[Wphile]

Of course they are hostile to Forrester's attorney. This was all set up in advance. Torricelli would not have withdrawn had he not known the NJSC would rule in the Dems favor.

Our system is broke.

[McLynnan]

His first mistake was assuming common sense, rule of law and courtesy mattered.

[jackbill]

One justice just handed him a softball and he dropped it. Geeeesh!

[hchutch]

I've seen the comments you posted about it.

SOMEBODY is lurking over at RNC. Now, let's see if they use the business analogy... :)

If a business did this, it would be shut down, and the owners would be very lucky to avoid an 8-foot by 10-foot prison cell with a cellmate who says, "My name is Spike, honey."

[blackdog]

This is the type of stuff that creates civil war. When judges who are appointed by politicians just get to make new laws, what do we even have a legislature for?

I think we are getting to witness the fall of a country here during it's early stages. I can surely see some nasty disputes among NJ residents (ala Bosnia/Serbia) when courts are this useful.

[cyncooper]

Just like the Florida SC you can hear the difference in how the Justices ask question and respond to the GOP attorneys.

I agree 100%.

[goldstategop]

How? Because they chose someone who was going to lose and the party didn't inform them of that fact back then? Well during the primary, the Rat bigshots all stood by The Torch cause it looked like he could blow the GOP candidate away in the fall. If the polls went in the other direction, no way, no how we would be having this hearing before the New Jersey Supreme Court today.

[dhfnc]

What about the Non-DemocRAT voters? Don't they have rights?

NO - ONLY DEMOCRATS HAVE RIGHTS

[KsSunflower]

She wants to know what the difference is between 52 days and 31 days.

Hello, have you heard about the rule of law!