Editorial: Playing by new rules - N.J. follows U.S. court down wrong path

Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/5/02

[InterceptPoint]

Look what the U.S. Supreme Court has started.

Notice to the Sacramento Bee

I'm sure that this was just an oversight on the part of your editor but this sentence clearly should have read:

Look what the Florida Supreme Court has started

I'll be looking for the correction in tomorrow's edition.

[Always Right]

Here are the editors of the Bee e-mail addresses:

dholwerk@sacbee.com
mpaul@sacbee.com
rmott@sacbee.com
grutland@sacbee.com
scooper@sacbee.com
tphilp@sacbee.com
jhughes@sacbee.com

And the e-mail I submitted:

I hate to inform you, but the whole premise of the Bee's editorial (Editorial: Playing by new rules) is incorrect. It was not the US Supreme Court who changed the rules, but the Florida Supreme Court who did. It was the US Supreme Court that slapped down 9-0 the Florida Supreme Court for changing the rules based on the Constitution and Federal Law, see GEORGE W. BUSH, PETITIONER v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD ET AL.

(http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-836_dec04.fdf)

"Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature's authority under Art. II, §1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U. S. C. §5. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

So you see, it is not the Republicans getting a taste of their own medicine, but de ja vu all over again.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

That's very good. Someone please tell me why this case went directly to the state supreme court.

[jaz.357]

..."As outraged Republicans are learning, what goes around, comes around".....PURE B.S!!!

[Bigun]

My e-mail to the Sacremento Bee Ombudsman follows:

From: Bigun

To: Ombudsman, Sacremento Bee

Subject: Editorial: Playing by new rules - N.J. follows U.S. court down wrong path

Whoever wrote this editorial has not the FAINTEST clue as to what actually happened in 2000 nor, for that matter, what is happening in New Jersey currently!

The Supreme Court of the United States got involved in Florida ONLY after the Florida Supreme Court unconstitutionally ignored and rewrote the election laws of Florida. The New Jersey court, completely ignoring the rulings of the USSC in that matter, has just done EXACTLY the same thing and ought to be slapped down HARD for so doing!

You OUGHT to INSIST that they correct this IN PRINT ASAP!

Bigun
Huntsville, Texas

[SW6906]

From another Freeper (I can't recall where I found this):

The US Supreme Court ruled three times in the Election fiasco of 2000:

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 failure to provide equal protection of the voters and their ballots, it was 7-2.

Regarding the complete lack of a Constitutional "remedy" for the Sore Loserman campaign, it was 5-4.

The last one is the one the Dems like to latch onto, but the other two are the key ones, IMHO.

[aruanan]

Look what the U.S. Supreme Court has started. Following the example of the nation's high court in the 2000 presidential election, the New Jersey Supreme Court this week decided also to intervene in an election, elevating abstract concerns about fairness over a strict reading of the law. As outraged Republicans are learning, what goes around, comes around.

Is this writer disingenuous or merely stupid? It was the Florida Supreme Court, another state supreme court, that decided to abrogate state law for partisan political purposes.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

True. The Florida Supreme overturned the 11th Circuit. My question still remains why this case went directly to the state supreme court?

[Always Right]

True. The Florida Supreme overturned the 11th Circuit. My question still remains why this case went directly to the state supreme court?

Because the Rats asked the NJ Supremes to take it and they accepted. Unusual, but because of the time constrants and the knowledge that it would eventually be appealed to them, they accepted. They did not have too.

[aruanan]

True. The Florida Supreme overturned the 11th Circuit. My question still remains why this case went directly to the state supreme court?

That old James Taylor song, "You've Got a Friend"?

[Laverne]

The took it publically to do some CYA because certainly the DNC had already been notified that SCONJ would rule in their favor.

[Moby Grape]

How can someone who can read and write come to such a foolish, and just plain wrong, conclusion?....the NJ Supreme Court is BREAKING the law, just has the Florida Supreme Court, and democrats tried to do in Florida. The US Supreme Court did not INTERVENE...it STOPPED LAWBREAKING ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL action by politically motivated democrats. PERIOD.

[randita]

FAX

To: Sacramento Bee Editorial Board

From The Honorable Senator Daschle

You stupid idiots! When we sent you the propoganda about the NJ switcheroo, we told you not to write anything until AFTER the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Republicans. Thanks a lot for blowing our cover. We were doing so well with the "every voter deserves a choice" propoganda campaign. Now you've gone and given a heads up to the Republicans about our next strategy should the SCOTUS do the right thing and rule against us.

Next time, read our propoganda releases more carefully, you dumbbells.

Signed,

Puff

[William Tell]

Bigun wrote to the Sacramento Bee: "Whoever wrote this editorial has not the FAINTEST clue as to what actually happened in 2000 nor, for that matter, what is happening in New Jersey currently!"

I don't believe this. And I bet you don't either.

The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise aided and abetted by the liberal media. Slowly, Democrats are recognizing this and moving to other parties. The shallowness in this article is an indicator of how far down the reasoning ability of the remaining Democrats (those who read and believe such garbage) has sunk.

My hope is that the SCOTUS will send a detailed inquiry back to the NJSC asking relevant questions to help them clarify whether there is a Constitutional issue. One such question might be: "What is the latest date that the Republican Party may change their candidate?"

Another is: "What is the latest date that the Green Party may change their candidate?"

Others: "How will absentee votes for Torricelli which have already been received be tallied and what mechanism will be used to handle ballots submitted by the same voter at a later time?" "How will the earlier ballot be tallied if no later ballot is received?"

These latter questions address the equal protection issues of election law. And I can hardly wait to hear what the NJSC suggests?

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

"Did you hear of a Republican* voting twice? Republican* felons voting in large blocks? Republican* illegal immigrants? Republicans* in nursing homes and hospitals ................."

You are exactly RIGHT! And so this article by the Sacrament Bee gets my October BARF ALERT of the day!

[Cicero]

This story is a total lie for the consumption of their idiot readers.

It doesn't take a legal eagle to understand that SCONJ almost exactly imitated SCOFLAw, not SCOTUS. If SCOTUS intervenes, once again it will be to correct an instance of raw, arbitrary judicial power acting ex post facto to nullify an established law for the convenience of their Democrat masters.

One hopeful thing is that even the Sacramento Bee admits that the SCONJ decision smells and assumes that their readers probably know it. So they are trying to sell a different lie from the one the NY Times is peddling.

[an amused spectator]

Yes, substituting Lautenberg on the ballot gives New Jersey voters a better choice.

Right. Tom Daschle appointed Lautenberg. The Democrat voters of New Jersey had NO choice in the matter.

[88keys]

What a complete idiot. It was the Florida Supreme Court that was slapped around for changing the rules. The US Supreme Court ruled that the rules could NOT be changed.

Exactly!!! However, I suppose that we should be thankful the SacBee actually criticized the NJSC, even if they erroneously make the comparison to SCOTUS...these poor libs, they just can't help themselves, but that makes them sound just plain stupid.

[wardaddy]

Typical liberal idiocy from the Bee.