Does NJSC precedent include a case where a candidate sought a replacement candidate, 30 days from as election, because of faltering poll numbers? Well it does now! Don't expect the courts to allow the same exemption from the law for any party other than the Democratic Party.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that state Supreme Courts are willing to abandon the rule of law in favor of the pursuit of their political ideologies.
Does NJSC precedent include a case where a candidate sought a replacement candidate, 30 days from as election, because of faltering poll numbers? Well it does now! Don't expect the courts to allow the same exemption from the law for any party other than the Democratic Party.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that state Supreme Courts are willing to abandon the rule of law in favor of the pursuit of their political ideologies.
Also, a little ridicule in front of the press never hurts - like:
"Who's the democratic candidate today?"
"I encourage my opponent, whoever he happens to be today, to a discussion of the issues."
"This has been a good week. I already beat several Democrats: first Torricelli, then Menendez, then Pallone, and now it's Lautenberg. Am I forgetting anyone?"
"I apologize I took an evening off the campaign trail for a quite evening with my wife. Do the Democrats have a new candidate again?"
And next week he can add: "This has been a slow week - only one Democrat to campaign against."
I happen to disagree. I think high-handed decisions like this do irreperable damage to the electoral system and destroy people's faith in representative democracy. The faith of the people in representative democracy is the one thing that keeps them from walking away from the process and relying on other means of organizing and identifying themselves.
For instance, I think the breakdown of secular democracy in India is a direct result of Indira Gandhi's "Emergency" policies of the late 1970s. Prior to that time, racial politics was an anathma on the Indian scene. After the people saw that democracy was a sham, that the fix was in and certain people would not be allowed to lose, they stopped participating in secular institutions and relied on the tried and true organizing structure of race and clan. The resulting conflagration, which we are currently witnessing unfolding in slow-motion, is a direct result of the lack of faith people have in representative democracy. If they can't get what they want with the ballot, they will get what they want with the gun, the club, and the mob.
Now, I don't suggest that this decision alone will lead to mob violence in the Garden State. But this decision, combined with the shameless activities of the Democrats in Florida 2000 and whatever stunt they will pull the next time around, will have the effect of eroding people's faith in the democratic institutions of this country. Once people begin to reflexively assume that the fix is in and that participation in the political process is meaningless, they will begin to rely on the people they trust, the people who look like them and the people who agree with them. And then the multicultural egalitarian society that has been the envy of the world will break down into camps divided by race and clan and we are one step away from the brink.
When courts mess with the process of representative democracy, they are playing with fire. But the courts don't care about that. They are just interested in the short term.