FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 10/03/2002 11:21:24 AM PDT by wcdukenfield
I thought the wheels of justice grind slowly. Then again, I never litigated before the hyper-efficient justices of the New Jersey supreme court.
On Monday, around 5 P.M., Sen. Robert Torricelli announced that he would not seek reelection. On the same day, the New Jersey Democratic party, among others, asked the superior court and the New Jersey supreme court to allow the ballots for the November election to be changed. The next day, Tuesday, the New Jersey supreme court took up the case directly and scheduled oral arguments for the following morning. On Wednesday morning, the court heard oral arguments for 2-1/2 hours. A mere six hours later, the justices ruled unanimously that Torricelli's name must be removed from the ballot and replaced with "a candidate duly selected by the Democratic State Committee." In other words, even if the Democrats had not agreed on a candidate by the time of this ruling, they would have been free to continue searching for the candidate with the highest poll numbers.
The justices were twitching like crack addicts to get this decision out by last night, and the opinion reflects their "deliberative" state of mind. The opinion consists of seven pages, double-spaced. The caption is two pages in length, the order is two pages in length, the recitation of facts consists of one page, and the entirety of the court's legal reasoning takes up all of two pages. They could at least have thrown in a couple of recipes to give their opinion more weight.
But the economy of words alone does not do this decision justice. The court found two cases on which it relied for purported precedent in rewriting New Jersey's election laws. The first case, Kilmurray v. Gilfert, is cited for the proposition that "it is in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all other qualifying parties and groups." [Emphasis added.]
The point is, of course, that Frank Lautenberg, the Democratic State Committee's replacement choice, does not qualify under existing New Jersey election law, which requires candidate selection to be completed no fewer than 51 days before the election. This citation does not support the court's position.
The next case in the court's two-case arsenal is Catania v. Haberle. The justices cite this case for the proposition that the law should be liberally construed "to allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on Election Day."
But the voters did have a choice on Election Day. They could vote for the Democratic nominee, the Republican nominee, or any of the other, minor party candidates on the ballot; or they could write in whomever they wished. Moreover, in Catania, the Republicans did not have a nominee. In the present case, the Democrats sought to replace their nominee. And they could only do so with the help of the court.
The New Jersey supreme court has now joined Florida's high court in its willingness to rewrite election law for partisan political purposes. I fear that the precedent set by Al Gore during the 2000 election, in which he sought judicial help in securing the presidency, will now plague the electoral process for decades to come. And when considered along with the spectacle now taking place in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee — in which highly qualified conservative judicial candidates are being summarily denied appointment — the Democratic party's politicization of the judiciary can be counted as yet another step in undermining the rule of law.
LOL!
Selected, not elected. Gee, that rings a bell, now, doesn't it?
Exactly. The choice on the ballot was NOT the one elcted by the people of NJ. The voting public was never even given the chance to decide if they wanted Lautenberg to represent them on this ballot.
We are quickly losing the rule of law and are now using liberal justification instead. It sickens. It destroys. The left celebrates chaos and destruction of our blessed country. (IMHO)
A search on Campaign Donation records here finds the following information:
New Jersey Supreme Court Justice James R. Zazzali:
ZAZZALI, JAMES R
RUMSON, NJ 07760
ZAZZALI ZAZZALI ET AL
| TORRICELLI, ROBERT G VIA TORRICELLI FOR U S SENATE INC |
|||
| 02/12/1999 | 1000.00 | 99020070546 | |
New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry T. Albin:
ALBIN, BARRY T
EAST BRUINSWICK, NJ 08816
WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER
| TORRICELLI, ROBERT G VIA TORRICELLI FOR U S SENATE INC |
|||
| 02/23/1999 | 1000.00 | 99020070166 | |
What was the basis for the 3 Republican Judges for the ruling?
Party affiliation does not prevent, cure, or even put a dent in **extreme** stupidity...
Oh heck, maybe the USSC could just rule on it first, and let them file later!
ASAP, Somebody needs to inform the New Jersey supreme court that there is no Republican on the ballot in NJ's first district against House incumbent Rob Andrews! This is an outrageous disregard of the voters' rights!
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.