Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

G.O.P. Asks Supreme Court to Void Ruling on Torricelli
New York Times ^ | 10/03/02 | TERENCE NEILAN

Posted on 10/03/2002 6:40:32 PM PDT by kattracks


Rebuffed by their own top state court, New Jersey Republicans appealed to the United States Supreme Court today to overturn a ruling that allowed Democrats to replace Senator Robert G. Torricelli's name on the Nov. 5 ballot.

Senator William Frist of Tennessee, chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee, delivered the request by hand to the Supreme Court this morning.

The New Jersey Supreme Court cleared the way on Wednesday for former Senator Frank R. Lautenberg to enter the race in place of Mr. Torricelli, who abruptly quit on Monday after a campaign dominated by questions about his ethics.

"It is clear that the New Jersey Supreme Court overstepped their authority, overriding the will of the people," Mr. Frist said after delivering the paperwork. "The change and switch on the ballot is illegal."

There was no immediate word on whether the high court would address the case.

Mr. Torricelli was trailing the Republican candidate, Douglas R. Forrester, by double digits in public opinion polls when he bowed out 36 days before the vote.

"If the lower court ruling is allowed to stand, political parties will be encouraged to withdraw losing candidates on the eve of election, replacing them with candidates who have not gone through the rigors of the nomination process in hopes of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat," the Republicans' filing said.

A lawyer for the Republican committee, Alex Vogel, said earlier that he was confident the court would agree to hear the case.

Mr. Vogel said the petition to the court would cite a provision of the Constitution that says "the time, place and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives" is decided by the state legislature.

"The Constitution doesn't give the courts the authority to make these decisions," he said, adding, "Article 1, Section 4 is very clear on this issue."

A less optimistic view of the Republicans' chances with the Supreme Court, however, was offered today by Richard J. Perr, who teaches election and political campaign law at Rutgers School of Law in Camden, N.J.

He did not rule out the court's agreeing to hear the case. But he said it would not be "so surprising if they decided not to take the case," which the Constitution makes clear "is almost entirely a state issue."

Even if it did hear the case, Mr. Perr added, "it would be very unusual for the United States Supreme Court to overrule a state supreme court on a question of purely state law."

Mr. Perr said the New Jersey Supreme Court was simply fulfilling its role of interpreting existing state law.

Mr. Vogel said he expected the court's agreement to hear the case within a day or two. A decision could come two or three days after that, he said.

If the justices agreed with the Republicans' position, the election would go ahead as originally planned, with Mr. Torricelli's name on the ballot, Mr. Vogel said.

Mr. Torricelli's decision to quit was made after consultations with top Democrats in Washington who feared that a loss in New Jersey, in the face of many other tight races across the country, might determine control of the Senate, where the Democrats now hold a one-vote majority.

Republicans say New Jersey law bars replacement of candidates if fewer than 51 days are left before the election. They argued in court that as of Wednesday only 34 days remained until voting time and said that switching candidates would nullify the voting rights of some military servicemen who had already mailed in absentee ballots.

But the seven justices — four Democrats, two Republicans and an independent — noted that New Jersey law does not specifically prohibit a change of candidates within 51 days of the election and ordered the printing of new ballots, to be delivered to eligible absentee voters.

Mr. Vogel said a separate lawsuit would be filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey on behalf of overseas military personnel who have requested absentee ballots.

"Federal law requires they should already have gone out," Mr. Vogel said, adding that the New Jersey court ruling is unclear about when these ballots would eventually be distributed.

He said the Republicans would ask the Justice Department to "force New Jersey to mail the ballots immediately."

Mr. Lautenberg, 78, who was chosen by party leaders to replace Mr. Torricelli, was expected to go to Washington today to meet with the Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

Wednesday's court decision was announced just minutes before Mr. Lautenberg held his first campaign rally at the Trenton War Memorial.

"Thank you very much," Mr. Lautenberg, who served three terms in the Senate but decided not to run again in 2000, told a raucous crowd of about 200 union leaders and Democratic Party officials. "Frank wants you!"

"The enthusiasm of this crowd is created by the fact that they tried to take away our rights, to smother our choice at the voting booth," he added.

Mr. Forrester said he would continue to campaign on the message that New Jersey is bottom of the list in receiving federal dollars and that the state needs help to clean its polluted environmental sites.

"We should not be last as we have been for years and years and Frank Lautenberg was part of that," Mr. Forrester said.



TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: democrat; forrester; gulla; mafia; newjersey; nj; republican; supremecourt; torricelli
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 10/03/2002 6:40:32 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
Mr. Perr said the New Jersey Supreme Court was simply fulfilling its role of interpreting existing state law.

That's the same line the clowns in Florida used when they were overturned 9-0. Mr. Perr should be fired for incompetence.

3 posted on 10/03/2002 6:45:44 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Ya know...there are some USSC Justices that would like to retire. I'm sure they have some interest in ensuring that their replacements don't have to rely on a Dem Senate to give consent.
4 posted on 10/03/2002 6:50:17 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Another Freeper, Concerned About Politics, just reminded us on another thread that right after 9/11, when there was concern that Rudy was leaving his position as mayor during a time of national emergency, Hillary was quoted as saying: "We can't extend Rudy's deadline, imagine if everyone did that?"
5 posted on 10/03/2002 6:54:02 PM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The national broadcast media's nightly news reports are treating the NJSC decision as if it was a complete report on our troop movements in Iraq.

A complete blackout.

Whatsup?

6 posted on 10/03/2002 6:59:11 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Quite right. SCOTUS overturned SCOFLAw on two main points. a) The constitution says that the state legislature sets the laws governing elections, not state courts. b) No court has the power to change the law ex post facto to suit its convenience.

SCNJ has exactly repeated the errors of SCOFLAw.
7 posted on 10/03/2002 7:00:25 PM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
19:13-20. Vacancy procedure

19:13-20. In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner:

There is no room for interpretation there, none, nada, zippo. The judicial activists rewrote the law to read "shall occur at any time before the election if we, the creme de la creme of society, decide that it is best for the pissants."

8 posted on 10/03/2002 7:00:36 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
The national broadcast media's nightly news reports are treating the NJSC decision as if it was a complete report on our troop movements in Iraq.

A complete blackout.

Whatsup?

Be careful what you ask for. To me it's a good thing, as long as they treat it the same way after the SCOTUS rules (whichever way they rule). Unfortunately, I think they are waiting for the SCOTUS so they can say one of 2 things (which both will be spun to make the Republican's look like the loser/cheater).

1) SCOTUS takes the case and eventually sides with Republicans.

Press reminds everyeone of how they "selected" GW for President and now they are trying to "select" the NJ senator.

2) SCOTUS takes the case and sides with NJ or they dont' take the case at all.

Republicans were hoping to get the Conservative Supreme Court to overturn a legal ruling about a state issue in NJ. However, unlike before the SCOTUS couldn't muster the votes to help the republicans.

9 posted on 10/03/2002 7:17:34 PM PDT by for-q-clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I can think of something that needs to be smothered in New Jersey, but it's not the voter's right to choice.
10 posted on 10/03/2002 7:18:53 PM PDT by HHFi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!
VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD


11 posted on 10/03/2002 7:31:30 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
LOL! I'm not surprised!
12 posted on 10/03/2002 7:34:25 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
It occurs to me that putting the "Lout" up for the seat they are pretty sure he will win is a win-win ploy for them. It will allow the Rats to have the Lout abruptly resign for health or other reasons and then the dem gov can appoint whatever criminal they want to the seat. Watch, they'll do it.
13 posted on 10/03/2002 8:05:13 PM PDT by RJS1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
BUMP your #7
14 posted on 10/03/2002 8:06:40 PM PDT by JulieRNR21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Sen. Torricelli with the Mafi and the CIA:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/750856/posts

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/17/162056.shtml

15 posted on 10/03/2002 8:21:56 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Peach

"I'm goin' places, Tom, and I'm takin' you with me!
16 posted on 10/03/2002 8:22:40 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
"Ya know...there are some USSC Justices that would like to retire. I'm sure they have some interest in ensuring that their replacements don't have to rely on a Dem Senate to give consent"

Bingo.

17 posted on 10/03/2002 8:27:06 PM PDT by Bedford Forrest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
Maybe that's all for the best. If they covered it, it would be in soundbites that would not inform the uninformed, but rather would most likely leave the impression that the Republicans hate democracy and definitely want to disenfranchise those poor New Jerseyians.

18 posted on 10/03/2002 8:40:04 PM PDT by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"They [Republicans] tried to take our rights away"??

What the hell is he talking about?

It's a parallel universe, forshure.
19 posted on 10/03/2002 8:42:54 PM PDT by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
This picture needs to be all over the place. I would like to see you make it into thousands of postcards that were then distributed to freepers for them to mail, a few every day, to Tom Thumb himself.

Just a little reminder, Tom.
20 posted on 10/03/2002 8:45:28 PM PDT by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson