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

Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/5/02

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

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

What kind of of responses would I have gotten with a story telling the truth?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If the . . . ruling by the NJ court stands the people of NJ should demand a full refund of the salaries of the Legislature, since they don't do anything anyway. After all it will be the courts that WRITE the laws.

EXACTLY!

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Good question re. the FSC. It probably has something to do with our AG Bob Butterworth.

The press neglected to tell the American people that Florida's AG Bob Butterworth (recently resigned to run for state senate) was a Democrat (Fla.'s the only state in the nation where most of the Cabinet is elected by the Fla. voters, not chosen by the Gov.). The press didn't mention that Bob Butterworth was Al Gore's Fla. campaign manager, a Dem. Fla. electorate, and a 2000 DNC Convention platform chairman (where he vowed to get rid of both Jeb and George). The press never asked BoB Butterworth to recuse himself. Fla. AG Bob Butterworth not only didn't recuse himself, he traveled around the state during the recounts telling crowds why he thought the FSC should choose our President though he swore to uphold our state's constitution and our state law doesn't give the FSC this authority.

The press is still condemning Katherine Harris for missing an election deadline to run for the House this year, but AG Butterworth did the same thing to run for state senate and not a peep from the press.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise aided and abetted by the liberal media.

In admitting that they are beaten but demanding an illegal second chance, the Democrats condemn themselves as scofflaws.

In systematically throwing away statutory schedules and deadlines at their own convenience for the second major election in a row, the Democratic Party has demonstrated an intention to corrupt the State Courts and use them as a battering ram against the Constitution.

The Democratic Party should be brought up on RICO charges and/or sued for treble damages under RICO, and financially ruined (but not allowed to file for bankruptcy). The FCC should be enjoined against allowing its licensees to incite unrest against the Constitution as duly interpreted by SCotUS. It's not safe to allow this to continue. And I suspect that SCotUS knows it.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise aided and abetted by the liberal media.

Furthermore, it would be exceedingly dangerous for SCotUS to impose a strong remedy on the RICO party at a time when it controled the White House.

That argues for the strongest medicine now before this passes the point of no return.

[Heff]

When are they going to stop suggesting that the COurt handed Bush the Presidency? After the media went down and "counted all the votes", BUSH STILL WON!

Get over it crybabies!

[supercat]

And the New Jersey decision at least has a patina of legal reasoning. The state's election law is ambiguous; it authorizes replacing candidates up to 51 days before the election but doesn't expressly forbid such replacements afterward. It appears that the replacement can be made without denying any voter the ability to participate in the election.

By this logic, I should be able to start a chess game by moving:

1. a:d8(Q)+

since the FIDE rules indicate the four ways a pawn may move but do not explicitly specify that no other moves are permissible.

[agrace]

That's what stands out to me also. It wasn't the SCOTUS that changed the rules, it was the SCOFLA that did, prompting the SCOTUS to step in, as they should here too. "What goes around comes around"? Gimme a break. More like, SSDD.

[JoeSchem]

What an odd omission - no mention of the Flordia Supreme Court's tomfoolery at all.

Elephants have longer memories than dumbasses. On the other hand, dumbass memories appear to be more 'selective' and 'convenient.'

[Bigun]

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

No but I thought the SOB ought to know that not EVERYONE is that stupid!

[RJL]

Here's mine.


Janis Besler Heaphy,

I just read your paper's editorial: Playing by new rules - N.J. follows U.S. court down wrong path.

This editorial is the most misleading and ignorant editorial I have ever read. Is it possible that this editorial was written by a seventh grader who doesn't remember what really happened in the 2000 presidential election?

I am sure you and your staff are big liberals, but can your paper really afford to write off all conservatives, thinking moderates and honest liberals? This editorial is insulting to anyone paying attention.

This editorial blames the United States Supreme Court for the situation in the 2000 presidential race, and thereby the situation in the New Jersey senate race. Mysteriously the editorial never mentions the Florida Supreme Court, which actually started and caused the confusion and problems. The only reason the United States Supreme Court stepped in was to correct and reestablish reasonable judicial control.

Did the Sacramento Bee forget that it was the Florida Supreme Court that, without precedent, without a petition, decided on their own, to intervene in the election and trample on the legislative branch of the government. The Florida Supreme Court ignored the current reasonable law and wrote new law that they found more to the Democrats and Al Gore’s liking.

The Florida Supreme Court also allowed the changing of the contest rules numerous times while the contest was still being decided. Every time it was apparent that Al Gore would not win, they changed the rules for counting the ballots!

The New Jersey Supreme Court is following the Florida Supreme Court, not the United States Supreme Court, in changing the rules of the contest after it has started. They are also following the Florida court in trampling the legislative branch by rejecting reasonable current law and writing laws more to the Democrats liking.

What is really sad, this is all being done for no reason other than Sen. Robert Torricelli is behind in the polls. The Democrats had members on the Senate Ethics Committee, they knew Sen. Robert Torricelli was dirty.

The Democrats could have taken the high road and endorsed someone else, but they chose not to, they thought he could still win. Now that it’s apparent that Sen. Robert Torricelli won’t win, the Democrats again want to change the rules of the game.

I hope and pray that the United States Supreme Court stands tall and slaps down the children on the New Jersey Supreme Court.


RJL

[WOSG]

Right the NJ SC acted as lawlessly as the Florida SC. The Sac Bee Liberal fools want to pretend the only court who interfered was the USSC. We know better.

If NO COURT HAD INTERFERED AT ALL ... the winner would have been G. W. Bush on Nov 21, 2000, when Katherine Harris wanted to to the original certification. It was only the egregious interference by the Florida Supreme Court, that certification dates were changed and re-recounts were conducted for the third time

Of course even then, the later certification date still gave us Goerge W Bush, then a *lower* court threw out the challenge, and then the Florida SC knagaroos *again* demanded an unwise and unfair Fourth recount, which THEN the USSC bitch-slapped down.

So which court here was out of line and more like NJ SC???

[boris]

"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"

I like it when they start right off with a lie.

"Look at what the Florida Supreme Court has started. Following the example of the backwater bench of hicks in the 2000 presidential election, the New Jersey Supreme Court this week decided also to intervene in an election."

Maybe the corrected paragraph could then be followed by speculation that the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to intervene to prevent an illegal and out-of-control state court from tampering with an election, as it did in the case of Florida.

--Boris

[WOSG]

My own letter:

The Sacramento Bee is right to criticize the dreadful and activist New Jersey Supreme
Court decision.

But your comparison to the US Supreme Court's decision in 2000 is mind-boggling.

The real true comparison is with the absymal decisions made by the Florida Supreme Court in the post-2000 election period, decisions that dragged out the post-election fiasco by changing certification dates, changing rules on what constitutes a vote, and attempting to have partial recounts that violated fairness and equal protection rules. If no Florida court had intervened at all, George W. Bush would have been the certified winner on November 21st, but the Florida Supreme Court, egged on by Gore lawyers, dragged out and distorted the whole process for weeks after.

The United State Supreme Court did nothing more than overrule Florida Supreme Court's poor decisions, basing it on the U.S. Constitution and Federal law that forbids changing election law after the fact and on equal protection concerns. It was based on precedent (Roe v. Alabama for example), while the Florida Supreme Courts rulings were not.

The New Jersey Supreme Court took a flyer out the Florida Supreme Court's playbook.
An equally activist court, they decided that they could rewrite election law on the fly.
The New Jersey election rules and deadlines, which were indeed clear, were ignored by the court. The reasoning that vague 'voter choice' interests overrides statutory limis
opens a pandora's box of possible future manipulations of the election system,
which is why it was bad decision and you are right to criticize it.

This pandora's box of on-the-fly election manipulation is something the United States Supreme
Court stopped in Bush v. Gore, not started. In future, get your analogies correct.

[LaGrone]

The FlaSC and NJSC both rewrote election laws, usurping powers specifically delegated to the state legislatures in the United States Constitution.

They were also slapped down because in rewriting the election laws, they were changing laws during an election.

So I disagree with the premise that the USSC took the Florida case in 2000 without good reason.

[CyberAnt]

How these people can equate what the NJSC did to what the USSC did is beyond me. The NJSC event is the very same thing the FLSC did - not the USSC. These people at the Sacramento Bee are more stupid than I thought!!

The USSC ruled against the FLSC that it's the legislators of a state who write the laws, not the judiciary - by a vote of 9-0.

I believe the NJSC will suffer a similar fate; much to the loud screaming of the dems.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Dear editors of the Sacramento Bee,

In response to your editorial "Look at what the US Supreme Court has started", I have a question:

When did you stop beating your wives?

[Always Right]

bunp

[GOPJ]

In a boxing match, round 10, both sides bloodied, democrats take out their man and throw in a fresh ringer and the "judges" say it's OK.

It would destroy sports, it'll destroy free elections.

What I want to know is: Will Lautenberg step down when he "wins" and give the seat to some other corrupt, but younger democrat? Is yet another "fix" in?

Lautenberg might have once been decent, but going along with this makes Lautenberg as creepy as Torricelli, if not creepier...