NJ Supreme Court Hearing Live Thread

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

[dhfnc]

The majority of the people in this country are too clueless to see it. 8 * (

That is the whole problem!

The majority of this country watches very little news and what news they watch is on NBC, CBS or ABC! They never get the whole story, only what Matt Rat, Katie Cutie and the others want them to know, which is only their agendas.

[1Old Pro]

Forrester's lawyer is not doing well.

I think he's doing what most people would do, find it unbelievable how stupid and partisan the justices are.

[agrace]

HA! I got to your post about 5 seconds after posting mine. :)

[goldstategop]

Forrester's attorney should have said the N.J Supreme Court had NO jurisdiction to hear the case since the deadline for a replacement candidate passed. The latest the Rats could have named a replacement was Sept. 16th and now its Oct. 2nd!!!

[Wphile]

This is a tactic that reeks of one of the sleaziest examples of corporate misconduct - deceptive "bait and switch" campaigning.

We have become a banana republic. Election laws don't mean anything - if you are a democrat that is - and the judiciary is as crooked as can be. Our country is going down the tubes. I am so ashamed.

[KsSunflower]

It is hard to appear intelligent if the argument that "what they are doing is clearly illegal" is completely set aside.

We are taught to rely on the law, if you can't argue the law, you're left to look like a bumbling idiot.

[laconic]

You realize, of course, that she was appointed to the bench by another nominal republican, Gov. Christie Whitman. Of the five justices Whitman appointed to the bench, two are Democrats, one is an independent, one is a Republican and one is this "republican". When Dem McGreevey got in, one of his first acts as governor was, of course, to appoint a DEMOCRAT to the Supreme Court. At least the Dems know who elected them and what they expect.

[cyncooper]

LOL, these justices say why can't we re-write laws.

Judges asking if they allow it this time how could they "safeguard" against future elections having candidates drop out due to being low in the polls? This was NOT asked as if they would rule against the dems, but asked in a way as they want to make this election the exception.

[tomkat]

bump²

[Consort]

NO - ONLY DEMOCRATS HAVE RIGHTS

More precisely: Only Democrats have RIGHTS and Republicans have what's LEFT.

[rintense]

This guys partner is up next. I hope he's better. Hell, it's clear to all of us that the SCONJ is completely disregarding the law and rewritting it. It will go to the SCOTUS because of this...

You just KNOW that the White House is steaming right now and discussing strategy as we type.

[LisaFab]

I need a drink!

Make mine a double and hold the 'fatal defect'!

[Common Tator]

This is SO sad.

This is the way the game is played. We have to live whit it and defeat it.

Here is the game their game plan as I see it.

  1. Lautenberg  gets nomination
  2. Supreme court is a slam dunk
  3. Lautenberg will be on ballot
  4. Lautenberg will win
  5. Lautenberg will resign in Sept 2003
  6. The torch will be appointed to replace him.
  
  Right now it looks like I am 2 out of 6.

I hope I am not batting 1000

[1Old Pro]

This guy is only 1/2 of the team. There is another atty who will address the federal issue.

I hope he has some slam dunk arguments for these clown justices.

[alnick]

It's like the Menendez brothers killing their parents and then asking the court for mercy because they are orphans.

I would love to see the Pubbie attorney use that analogy.

[Puddleglum]

I hope the Pubbie lawyer holds his own, but I have a feeling the Pubs' are holding back their big guns for a likely round two. If the Dems lose, they'll appeal; if the Pubs lose, they'll appeal...

[San Jacinto]

Get ready for an appeal to the USSC

That's a bad move, in my view. The spin would be: 'Pubs ask USSC to "award" Senate seat to Forrester (and by a 5-4 vote, no doubt). Just go after Lautenberg on the merits as a representative of the corrupt NJ political system - judges included.

[ELS]

Sheesh, Who cares what other states do? This is a NJ issue. Grrr!

[Lightnin]

Hope I'm not repeating something already on this thread, but I heard on Fox earlier that two of the Justices have contributed $1,000 each to the Torch. Shouldn't that be automatic grounds for recusal?

[Teacher317]

Judges can overturn laws. Apparently, these judges don't think there's any need to address the reasons for the laws, the intent of the legislatures, fairness to absentee voters, the importance of the primary elections, etc.