Take the Torricelli Case - Wall St. Journal Editorial

Wall St. Journal ^ | Friday, October 4, 2002 | Wall St. Journal Editorial Board

[pittsburgh gop guy]

Given the outcry directed at the U.S. Supreme Court after it ended the 2000 Florida recount, we'd understand if the Justices aren't too keen on getting involved in another election dispute.

But when it comes to the Republican appeal yesterday of the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision to allow a late switch on the state ballot, we don't think they have much of a choice. Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution specifically delegates to state legislatures, not to state governments as a whole, the authority over the "times, places and manner" of holding Senatorial elections. As such, the "equitable powers" invoked by the New Jersey court to "liberally construe" this particular law simply do not exist.

[steveegg]

BTW, I just heard last week that the Floraduh Supremes finally responded to the 9-0 overturn, but I haven't bothered to read what their reponse was.

It probably involved a lot of ear wax on the fingers.

[CharacterCounts]

I doubt the NJ Legislature could pass an ex post facto law anyway. So it wouldn't help us this time.

They did for the Schundler primary election. They passed a law retroactivley moving the primary election back so that the 51 day deadline would not be violated. This NJ court upheld the legislation.

[copycat]

As such, the "equitable powers" invoked by the New Jersey court to "liberally construe" this particular law simply do not exist

THANK YOU!@!!

[Tennessean4Bush]

Can the Jersey legislature do the same thing that the NJSC just did?

Yes, but it could only apply to future elections.

[copycat]

Equitable powers do not exist where the Constitution has given power expressly to the legislature.

[steveegg]

Bingo. What's even more-egregious in this case is that the NJ Legislature has given NO power to the NJ judiciary.

[Lil'freeper]

They passed a law retroactivley moving the primary election back so that the 51 day deadline would not be violated. This NJ court upheld the legislation.

Bwahahhahahaaa! The court ignored their very own precedent of honoring the 51 day limit.

[rstevens]

They can, but not until this election is over. Federal laws prohibits any change to election laws in the midst of an election.

[GirlShortstop]

Equitable powers do not exist where the Constitution has given power expressly to the legislature.

As a NJ citizen, I'd like to know what can be done to bring pressure to bear to admonish, reprimand or impeach, this court. Their judicial activism makes me sick!

BTW, the 51-day provision that NJSC ignored is not the only law affected by their ruling; laws regulating the county clerks election practices are now bent as well

The 29-day preelection report shall end with the reporting of the last transaction occurring before 12:00 A.M. on the 31st day preceding the date of the election. NJ Election Regs ^

There is *no way* this law can be abided because of the reprint.
Disgraceful.

[rstevens]

Primaries are not federally mandated in the way that general elections are. Its fairly easy to change laws even during the primary cycle. I believe GA had to push back their primary date to allow for a 45 day law in order to meet the absentee ballot deadline. Primary laws and rules are fairly easy to adjust to whereas general elections must be accomplished in order to meet the constitutional Tuesday in November requirement.

[Godfollow]

If words plainly spoken (New Jersy voting laws) do not make for easy interpretation (what you think the words plainly mean) then there is no such thing as social norm (a nation governed by law) and chaos rules the day.

So whoever can rule chaos rules completely, i.e. "that depends on what the deffinition of "is" is".

[Congressman Billybob]

Not only can the NJ Legislature change the deadline rules after the fact, it did do so just a year ago. The deadline had passed, but the legislature wrote a law to extend the deadline. In the extended time, Governor diFrancesco dropped out of the race for serious ethical problems and was replaced by Rep. Franks, who then got diFrancesco's campaign war chest.

Bret Schundler sued to stop last year's switcheroo, but was denied by the same NJ SC. (I was involved in that litigation.)

Last year's switcheroo and corruption scandel involved Republicans. This year's one involves Democrats. What is it about New Jersey that leads inevitably to corruption and deliberate flaunting of the law?

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

Click for "Death as a Political Strategy"

[joyful1]

If its up to "Taliban" Souter, forget it.

How Bush-the- First ever saw fit to nominate this hapless ultra-left wing liberal to the Supreme Court is beyond me.

[hobbes1]

SCOTUS prayer Ping!

[hobbes1]

2 factors came into play.

1. Bush the Elder, is not Bush the Younger. Bush the Elder, is a MAINE republican, read Semi-Liberal North East Republican, though more conservative than most in that Area.

2. Warren Rudman. A complete RINO was the man that picked Souter for Bush.

[Incorrigible]

NJ Soprano Court Bump!

[Incorrigible]

New NJ advertising campaign slogan:

Tony Soprano
Bob Torricelli
Jim McGreevey

Perfect together!

[lepton]

7-1-1 on the Equal protection, and 5-4 on the remedy.

[mwl1]

My recollection is that it was John Sununu who pushed hard for Souter. Probably the only egregious mistake he made as chief of staff to Bush 41.

[nicmarlo]

Thanks for the ping. I'm surprised that the WSJ ran this editorial...they aren't the most conservative paper. Very good article. And this is true:

if the Supreme Court doesn't clear this up now, it probably will have to sooner or later.

This is my first time online all day....so I'm playing catch up with any "news" on this....I'm assuming, right now, all's quiet.