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.

[pittsburgh gop guy]

Pretty much says it all. Gotta love the editorial page of the WSJ.

[Mo1]

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 Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[cactusSharp]

awesome, but next the tv dems and jersy
will "scream for", more time,more this ,more
that,but "more". Even tho they were wrong,sneaky,
and deceitful. When this stunt is corrected, the
dems will still want something......it just kills me

[Consort]

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

[D-fendr]

Sure. But they might not be as gutsy to change the law to allow a party to change candidates after the voting has begun.

That might smell too much even for New Jersey legislators.

[D-fendr]

You do raise another interesting point:

Judges are supposed to interpret the law based on the legislator's intent. Would be interesting to here from NJ legislators that this was, ahem, not quite their intent.

[Timesink]

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

[matthazard]

No, they are not. They are supposed to interpret the law based on the clear text of the statute. In the case of New Jersey election laws, the text is ineluctably clear: the ballot can not be changed at this point; the Dems are stuck with the Torch. Anything else is purely judicial legislation (i.e., tyranny).

[The Raven]

Quotes: US Constitution: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof ..." NJ Legislature: "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." The Raven: The search for truth and integrity in the corrupt Democratic Party continues.

[Molly Pitcher]

....which reminds me...tonight CNBC carries the WSJ editorial board program...

[gunnedah]

With the Democrats it is "THE RULE BY LAW" not the "RULE OF LAW." As frightening as it may seem,it is amazing what a lawyer can do with a play on words. Remember the word "IS"?

[steveegg]

Oversized ping to the Wall Street Journal editorial page (sadly, they didn't include it as part of OpinionJournal; I would have loved to see Steven Platzer contort himself on this one).

If you're already here, good. I simply pulled this mega-mini-ping list from those that I discussed this with previously.

[PGalt]

The fact that the FLSC and NJSC justices are still on the bench, shows how fragile the republic is...criminals unchecked destroying the infrastructure...the rule of law...we are debating the fundamentals of our nation's existence...with members of a crime syndicate, domestic enemies. It's as absurd as domestic enemies Bonoir and McDermott taking their case to the capital of our foreign enemies!

[randita]

Thanks for the ping!

The New Jersey court may have been emboldened by the Supreme Court's refusal in Bush v. Gore to clearly affirm the sovereignty of state legislatures in writing rules for the selection of federal candidates.

The SCOTUS ruling in this instance was 5-4. I can believe the NJSC would think it worth a try to test it again and see if one of the justices would switch.

I do think it's very important that a clear message be sent to state courts that they can't nullify state laws concerning elections. We thought that had been done in the case of Bush vs. Gore in FL, but apparently not.

I've a hunch that NJ voters are going to set this one straight without any help from the SCOTUS, but there may well be future instances where the voters are not given the opportunity to set it straight.

Even this election cycle, HI has climbed aboard the fast express toward a banana republic. HI is attempting to get an exemption so they won't have to have a special election for Patsy Mink's seat--they don't want to spend the $$$.

[PhilipFreneau]

The fact that the FLSC and NJSC justices are still on the bench, shows how fragile the republic is...criminals unchecked destroying the infrastructure...the rule of law...we are debating the fundamentals of our nation's existence...with members of a crime syndicate, domestic enemies.

It is fairly certain if there were no leftist judges, our Constitution would be secure.

[Always Right]

The SCOTUS ruling in this instance was 5-4. I can believe the NJSC would think it worth a try to test it again and see if one of the justices would switch.

On the point of the Constution and Federal Law against changing the rules of the election, the ruling was 9-0. It only became 5-4 on the equal protection ruling and the remedy concerning the re-count.

[steveegg]

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

That becomes a timing issue. As the balloting process has started, ANY change in the 2002 NJ Senate election rules by ANY authority (including Congress) would violate the equal-protection and ex-post-facto clauses of the Constitution. In short, they could have done this (or specifically enabled the Jersey Supreme Idiots or any other body they wished) between 9/16 and the mailing of the first absentee ballot. As they failed to do so, the ballot should be restored to the condition it was on 9/29 (i.e. the Torch on the ballot as the Democratic candidate, Lautenberg not on the ballot but able to run a write-in campaign).

[The Wizard]

bttt

[steveegg]

There were actually 3 differing vote totals:

Regarding the inability of any authority to change the rules of a Federal election after the process started (in Floriduh's case, changing the counting and reporting rules in an Electoral College election), it was 9-0.
Regarding the complete lack of a Constitutional "remedy" for the Sore Loserman campaign, it was 5-4.
Regarding the failure to provide equal protection of the voters and their ballots, it was 7-2.

[Always Right]

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.