NJ: Court case could go south fast

Star-Ledger ^ | Thursday, October 03, 2002 | Paul Mulshine is a Star-Ledger columnist.

[KQQL]

That's where the New Jersey Supreme Court seems to be taking us. The decision yesterday to let Frank Lautenberg run for the U.S. Senate on the Democratic ticket raises the prospect of a repeat of the Bush-Gore contest two years ago.

[KQQL]

!

[KQQL]

@

[Incorrigible]

Paul Mulshine BUMP!

[RobRoy]

Hey, let's change the word "shall" to "may" in our traffic laws!

Some samples:

I may stop for a stop sign.
I may stop for a red light.
I may pull over for an emergency vehicle.

Gee, it seems somehow different...

[aristeides]

Isn't the Star-Ledger pretty far left? Does Mulshine share the paper's politics?

[aristeides]

The funny thing here is that Torricelli claimed he was chased out of the race by "a faceless foe that I cannot find," but it is now Forrester who is up against a foe who might as well be faceless. Frank Lautenberg had one of the more lackluster Senate careers in state history. His contemporary, Bill Bradley, is remembered for his grasp of tax policy. Lautenberg isn't remembered for much of anything.

Actually, Forrester's new foe is even more faceless than that. The Soprano Court's order directs that the person whose name is to be substituted for Torricelli's on the ballot is "the new candidate" and "the new candidate selected by the Democratic State Committee." The order doesn't name Lautenberg. I suspect the order was written before the choice of Lautenberg was finalized at 8 PM on Tuesday. That would also mean, by the way, that the order was written before the oral argument on Wednesday.

[Southack]

Hypothetically speaking, what are the Dems in NJ going to do if Lautenberg gets spooked and backs out of this race?!

[aristeides]

I think the Soprano Court's order would work for any new candidate chosen by the Democratic State Committee, not just Lautenberg.

[Question_Assumptions]

Wow. I can't believe that was published in the Star Ledger. Hopefully this signals that this plot is just too blantant for even the pro-Democrat press to ignore (except the New York Times, of course).

[steveegg]

Hey, let's change the word "shall" to "may" in our traffic laws!

Let me try:

I may do a maximum of 65 mph down I-94 headed toward Chicago.
I may keep a working catalytic converter on my vehicle.
I may take my vehicle in for emission testing when it's time to renew my registration.

Isn't "may" fun?

[DiamondDon1]

There is a cancer in the Democratic party, and in New Jersey, that cancer goes to the bone.

Rule of law? What rule of law? Isn't the law flexible? What does "shall" mean? Shall, may, shouldn't, can't, could, all CAN mean anything in the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

As a side note:

Do any of these Supreme Court Justices drive? When they get to a light, what do they think? What does RED mean? What does GREEN mean? When is a left turn a interpretable situation?

It is pretty scary...

DD

[Political Junkie Too]

What other numbers are arbitrary?

• How about the 55-MPH speed limit?
• How about the 18-year-old voting age?
• How about the 21-year-old drinking age?
• How about the age of consent for marriage?
• How about the 2-year term for representatives, 4-year term for president, 6-year term for senators, and 10 years max for being president?

-PJ

[ELS]

I did like this line:

As the Bush-Gore case showed, Trenton native Antonin Scalia loves nothing more than to find creative ways to pin back the ears of judicial activists on the lower levels. He could have great fun with the Jersey crowd.

NJ does produce some lawyers with integrity - Scalia and Napolitano come to mind - it's too bad none of them sit on the NJSC (but it is very good that Scalia made it to the USSC).

[Incorrigible]

Paul Mulshine arrived with Commie Op/Ed Editor Richard Aregood from the the Philadelphia Inquirer.  Aregood brought him a long to add the one voice of reason in Newark!  Of course, in a perfect world, their jobs would be reversed. 

Click his picture for more of his columns.

[1Old Pro]

Oh please, give Scalia a chance to spank these corrupt justices.

[Howlin]

I've been listening to the NJ shills on tv; I am simply amazed that they can make their own case with such a straight face.

"Sure the law states that the time to withdraw is 51 days, but it doesn't say what happens when the withdrawal happens AFTER that."

Is it just me, or is the obvious answer, "It doesn't happen."

[Howlin]

And I'm looking for the law, any law, that says voters are entitled to a DEMOCRAT on the ballot.

[FreeMe2]

Around here it's "The Red Star Ledger"

[jpl]

Wow. I can't believe that was published in the Star Ledger. Hopefully this signals that this plot is just too blantant for even the pro-Democrat press to ignore (except the New York Times, of course).

He understands the two points that are most obvious to just about anyone who cares and is reasonably intelligent (the last requirement eliminating the NYT). Number one, there's about a 90-95% chance that they're going to get a humiliating smackdown from the SCOTUS. Number two, in the unlikely event that this is actually allowed to stand, the floodgates are open for just about anyone to attempt this stunt, including Republicans, which will turn every election into a ridiculous charade.