'Fair ballot choice' ruled for NJ
Posted on 10/03/2002 2:13:27 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
'Fair ballot choice' ruled for NJ
Democrats can replace Torricelli, court says; GOP out to block move
10/03/2002
TRENTON, N.J. - The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Democratic Party can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the November ballot, giving hope to Democrats scrambling to retain control of the Senate.
The court cited previous rulings that said election law should be broadly interpreted to "allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice."
Allowing the Democrats to replace Mr. Torricelli with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg, the justices said, was a move "in favor of a full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey."
Republicans have vowed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, arguing that under New Jersey law, Mr. Torricelli's withdrawal from the race came too late for a replacement and that Democrats shouldn't be allowed to dump a candidate who was trailing GOP nominee Douglas Forrester in the polls.
Republican officials said they planned to file a motion in federal court Thursday to block any move that would alter ballots already sent to military personnel and civilians overseas.
The court fight over who will appear on the ballot is key: Democrats hold a single-seat majority in the Senate.
The dispute erupted after Mr. Torricelli dropped out of the race Monday, saying his campaign had been overwhelmed by ethics questions. He was admonished over the summer by a Senate committee for allegedly taking lavish campaign gifts from a campaign donor.
Late Tuesday, top state Democrats settled on Mr. Lautenberg, 78, as their substitute candidate.
In a three-hour hearing Wednesday, the justices - four Democrats, two Republicans and one independent - asked whether it was possible to print and pay for new ballots in time for the election and whether it was fair to bend the rules to accommodate the Democrats' request.
The justices ruled that the state Democratic Party must pay for ballots to be reprinted, which state election officials estimate will cost $800,000.
The court cited previous rulings that said election law should be broadly interpreted to "allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice."
Earth to SCONJ: The people made their choice. It was Torricelli !
The dispute erupted after Mr. Torricelli dropped out of the race Monday, saying his campaign had been overwhelmed by ethics questions. He was admonished over the summer by a Senate committee for allegedly taking lavish campaign gifts from a campaign donor.
No, what he said was:Noting that Democratic control of the Senate is at stake in the Nov. 5 general election, Mr. Torricelli said: "I could not stand the pain if any failing on my part will do damage to the things and the people that I have fought for all of my life."
SCONJ is legislating from the bench. SCOTUS should overturn this, and blast SCONJ in the process, imho....
I'm goin' to Bally's for a workout. Be back later folks.
Next time they should save the money they have to spend on a Primary and let the "top state Democrats" pick the right guy in the first place! ;-)
Of course the SCONJ hacks had to contrive a different reason for interpreting into oblivion legislation that was crafted to prevent exactly this sort of scenario. Giving voters a choice. Huh? To save my life I can't see where that's an issue or how the remedy even touches on voter choice, much less expands it. These moron justices must have counted on there being no federal review of their decision and just wrote up a legally absurd rationale that sounded good to the rank and file so they could give the dems a leg up in the Senate.
#1. There were supposed to be three Republicans on this court.
#2.Two of the Dem justices were contributors to Torch's campaign. They threw their money away as well as their support.
Power in government is now about control of the judiciary. Democrats in the Senate are blocking federal judicial appointments of those individuals whose ideology is not in agreement with theirs. They have surrendered hope in achieving majorities to pass their wildest crap in the legislative branch. They have been reduced to the pursuit of judicial lawmaking. The judiciary is fully cooperative and happy to usurp legislative authority to make up the law as they go along.
The two major parties are not far apart on the big, bigger, biggest government agenda anymore. Elections are now almost completely about who appoints judges. The Democrats have made no secret about that in their illegal efforts to rig the Florida election of 2000 and this New Jersey election.
Unelected judges now overrule laws, initiatives and referenda without little hesitation and are a key element in the road to destruction of our constitution and our system of checks and balances. We can now count on courts to do the wrong thing and ignore the will of the people and to disregard the system under which we are supposed to live.
Why even bother to have primaries? There should be a price to pay for leaving the agreed upon system merely because you percieved that you were losing.
To the elite, the Law means nothing. The law makers and law interpreters feel they are not subject to the same laws they hold over the non-elitests (us) continually, and at the point of a gun.
Anarchy reigns...
Iraq resolution introduced in Senate
[Small Wonder Democrats Have Become A Laughingstock]
Excerpt:
But what can be said of a party which refuses to denounce treasonous scum like McDermott and Bonior, who argue the real threat isn't in Baghdad but in the White House?
Here's what Democrats would probably tell you privately: 'But ... but ... but, Torricelli had no choice but to bail. Having Torricelli's name on the ballot is like having Mullah Omar on the ballot. I mean, the guy's as radioactive as baby milk factories in Baghdad; about as popular with voters as Pat Robertson at an atheist rally, Ken Lay at an Enron stockholders' meeting, or the 'Pledge of Allegiance' at one of our party conventions.'
'Heck, we're only trying to give voters in New Jersey a choice', they will say.
Ah, yeah, sure -- and Barbra Barbara Striesand is a great speller and Saddam Hussein can be trusted and Bill Clinton did not have sex with 'that woman' and Martha Stewart did not have insider trading with that man and Maxine Waters is a rocket scientist and the Baath Party is a human rights organization and O.J. was "framed" by the LAPD.
Democrats argue they need not be bound by laws, rules or deadlines. After all, they're Democrats, i.e., they're special. Yes, laws should apply equally to all -- no quarrel there, they say. It's only fair. But to be even fairer, laws should apply more equally to some than to others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.