FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 10/03/2002 6:35:31 AM PDT by FreedomWarrior
October 3, 2002 9:00 a.m.
New Jersey’s Liberal Constructionists
Legislating from the bench.
Six of the seven New Jersey supreme-court justices responsible for Wednesday's "interpretation" of the state's election laws to permit the Democratic party to substitute a more credible candidate for the faltering Robert Torricelli were put on the bench by liberal Republican former governor Christine Todd Whitman.
Whitman's goal in appointing these men and women was to ensure that legal abortion and other policies favored by social liberals would be protected by the judiciary against legislation that might be enacted by the people's elected representatives in Trenton. (Recall that these are the judges who tried to force the Boy Scouts to permit homosexuals to become scoutmasters.) To achieve her goal, Whitman needed to appoint justices who would refuse to be bound by the letter or even the spirit of the law, but would feel free to displace or rewrite laws they didn't like. In short, she needed individuals who would have no qualms about legislating from the bench. She found them. Yesterday they proved their mettle.
The New Jersey statute in question could not have been clearer: A political party may not replace one candidate with another within 51 days of the election. Since Torricelli announced that he was getting out of the race for the U.S. Senate a mere 34 days before the voters were to decide his electoral fate, the letter of the law plainly forbade the Democrats to replace his name on the ballot with that of a different candidate (e.g., former Senator Frank Lautenberg).
What about the spirit of the law?
Consider what might have been appropriate had a candidate died or become disabled within the 51-day period. A judicial decision to permit that candidate's party to replace his name on the ballot with that of another candidate would have been reasonable because it would not have subverted the manifest purpose of the statute, namely, to prevent candidates who are losing as the race is drawing to a close from dropping out to make room for a fresh runner. Of course, Torricelli was very much alive (physically, that is) when he decided to give up. He wanted out — and his party wanted him out — because he was losing. In short, the Democrats asked the court for permission to pull the very maneuver that the law was designed to prevent.
So it would be absurd to suppose that the justices, in granting the request, were merely sacrificing the letter of the law for the sake of its spirit. Spirit and letter were both tossed on the ash heap. To have applied the law as written would have fulfilled its purposes — its spirit — perfectly. But the justices didn't like the law or its consequences, so they nullified it.
Consider the consequences of this naked act of judicial legislation.
The law in question is dead. In the future, whenever a candidate in New Jersey is badly behind in the polls as the day of electoral judgment nears, his party will encourage him to withdraw from the race in favor of a more popular individual who has not been bloodied by months of campaign combat. The very thing the New Jersey legislature designed the law to prevent is from now on perfectly legal under the precedent established Wednesday by the state's supreme court.
Of course, the justices — comically — fell all over themselves trying to deny doing what they undeniably did. But they gave the game away with their own rhetoric. "Rewriting the law? Heavens, no!" they insisted. They were simply giving the statute a "liberal construction" to ensure a genuine electoral contest. A "liberal construction?" That phrase is nothing but a euphemism for legislating from the bench in the cause of advancing the liberal social agenda. It has long since lost its capacity to fool people who are paying attention.
In yesterday's ruling, the Whitman Republicans and Torricelli Democrats literally made up the law to help keep the United States Senate in the hands of the party of social liberalism. It was, in every sense, a "liberal construction."
— Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. His most recent book is The Clash of Orthodoxies.
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.
Another shining example that DIMocRAT Liberals are Ethically Challenged !!The New Jersey statute in question could not have been clearer: A political party may not replace one candidate with another within 51 days of the election. Since Torricelli announced that he was getting out of the race for the U.S. Senate a mere 34 days before the voters were to decide his electoral fate, the letter of the law plainly forbade the Democrats to replace his name on the ballot with that of a different candidate (e.g., former Senator Frank Lautenberg).
What about the spirit of the law?
Consider what might have been appropriate had a candidate died or become disabled within the 51-day period. A judicial decision to permit that candidate's party to replace his name on the ballot with that of another candidate would have been reasonable because it would not have subverted the manifest purpose of the statute, namely, to prevent candidates who are losing as the race is drawing to a close from dropping out to make room for a fresh runner. Of course, Torricelli was very much alive (physically, that is) when he decided to give up. He wanted out — and his party wanted him out — because he was losing. In short, the Democrats asked the court for permission to pull the very maneuver that the law was designed to prevent.
Oh really? The manifest purpose? I believe the NJ legislature extended the timeframe in 1985 from 35 days to 51 days to allow overseas (military) absentee ballots to be sent and received in time for the November 5th cutoff.
Allowing a new candidate within this 51 day period would not allow enough time to reprint, resend and receive these votes, thereby "disenfranchising" these voters. This will be the argument used in front of the SCOTUS, if they'll hear it.
There are CLOSE races that deserve greater attention.
Don't forget, Gore would have won if he had won his own state!!
This ploy is taking our attention away from other close races!!!
Repubs might relax and fail to vote in these close races thinking the hinge is all about Joisey!! (Similar to Repubs in Florida after the early call was for the Dems!!!)
Sac
But he did win his home "state" - Washington DC.
Alert!! Alert!! Richard J. Daley sighting in NJ!!
It's obvious that "Hizzoner" (Mayor Richard J. Daley), must not have died over two decades ago. He's alive and well and moved to New Jersey and is running the state machine there.
Are democrat bullies afraid of being too obvious?
I believe that they have just decided that they are no longer a constitution republic or a"democracy".
New jersey is is now run as a elitist statist oligarchy.
It is no longer the Christian state safeguarding liberty that was originally in 1776.
chuck <truth@Y'shuaHaMashiach>
Yes, I believe so. Will see if the US Supreme Court takes this up and reverses it. But apart from that, it's not and never has been the New Jersey Supreme Court's job to review the 'fairness' of laws. It's job is to determine the consitutionality of laws (as per the NJ Constitution). It didn't determine that the election law in question was unconsitutional; it just overturned it by fiat. It's become a tyrant.
They better hear it......I think they will. This clearly was legislating from the bench to allow Torricelli to committ political suicide to make room for someone that might allow a better chance to beat the opponent. I would say these words regardless of which party was trying to do this. But I don't recall an attempt like this by a GOP candidate. The GOP has shown better ethics in the past regarding elections. Those that don't usually are quickly restrained/pursuaded to do the right thing......
As I said in an earlier post, the Democratic Party’s obvious melt down by these two members of the DSA, gives the nation one more clue as to the twisted thinking of the DNC where there is No Legal Controlling Authority, not even among themselves. Stupidity is no defense for Treason.
New Jersey is just another example of the left doing what they want to regardless of law, any law.
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.