[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.