Posted on 10/05/2002 8:43:12 AM PDT by grammymoon
I haven't seen or heard a word about developments. Any news here?
Souter only rules, as the emergency judge, whether to issue an injunction to stop ballot printing until the court can decide. HE HAS NOT DONE SO, and instead he deferered the decision on the request for stay to the full court.
One could say as a left leaning judge that he is purposefully allowing the SCONJ decision to take root. I hope they're not printing ballots on the weekend.
They usually take 24-48 hours, so we should hear something today...(fingers crossed)
Vote your opinions here:
Should the Democratic Party Be Able to Replace Robert Torricelli's Name On the Ballot?
Articles here:
SCOTUS could order the SCONJ decision reversed and Torricelli's name on the ballot, order the ballots printed by Fri, and set the election date for 35 days after that.
Yeah, it really makes you wonder how the NJSC was able to rule so quickly...almost as if they planned the whole thing, but they wouldn't dishonor the RAT party with shenanigans like that (/sarcams)
If we do have any, I certainly hope they don't provide any "insight".
This would probably be the fastest way possible for them to become ex-SC Clerks.
Yeah...Coulter might know but she's got other things cooking right now ;-)
Anybody got a direct hotline to Ann?
In one sense it is, but in another it is not. The senator of NJ represents NJ. Just as your local congresscritter is supposed to represent your district (not even your state), but their votes impact the entire country. Whichever way the ruling goes, I'm sure there will be plenty of hairs to split so the RATs will be able to make a semi coherant argument against us and we can do the same. Let's face it, whenever a court can rule 51 days doesn't mean 51 days, anything is possible. So an issue of is the election of a senator a state issue or Federal issue is clearly on the murky side. Sure the fed gives guidance, but the real rules for election of senators are set by states. For example, LA votes has one of those need 50% to win systems or their's a run-off election (BTW: if that happens and the senate is even...you'll see the nastiest campaign ever in that run-off).
If there is going to be an immediate reversal and injunction, it will most likely come down TODAY. If nothing happens today, the Court almost never acts on Sunday. After that, it is Monday morning, or not at all.
Keep in mind that the US SC has one option the lamestream media have not considered. And it happens to be the one option which can get the needed long-term results of both controlling run-away state judges AND preventing the "go-to-court" backlash against Forrester. It is this:
The Court can deny the injunction and allow the NJ election to proceed. But it can hen decide in due time that the NJ SC was wrong, and lay down the law that ALL state courts must obey the Constitution (which the Constitution commits to the "legislatures," not to the "states" -- including their judges). That will leave a very messy problem if Lautenberg wins, but not if Forrester wins.
There is some truth in the turn-of-the-century comment of Mr. Dooley, a New York pol, "Th' Supreme Court follows th' illicition returns." The Court may reason politically, not judicially, and decide to hold off now but slam the NJ SC AFTER the election. That gives the best chance that Forrester will win. And that, in turn, defangs the claim that "The Supreme Court shouldn't decide elections."
The charge is baseless concerning 2000, since a bazillion recounts all showed that Bush won Florida, and therefore the election. But the charge cannot even be made if the Court holds off now about the New Jersey Supreme Court, but slams them after the election.
Congressman Billybob
Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."
In a ruling against Florida in 1980 the fed courts said their 20 day window to mail out ballots wasn't long enough to give absentee voters enough time to ensure their votes. Floriduh said ok is 35 good and it was acceptable. Later they tried to change it to 30 days and the courts said nope it will disenfranchise abesentee voters. But Floriduh argued that the 35 day window forces their Primaries to be in July when many voters are on vacation which DOES disenfranchise more voters than are absentee voters. But as I already mentioned the fed courts said they couldn't shorten it to 30 days to ensure more voters could participate in primaries.
Well, this does look like good news. Of course, the courts could say with improvements in shipping mail the window can be shortened to 20 days (since it isn't a law that saw 35 days, but rather a court ruling based on 1980 mail delivery schedules).
Isn't it ironic, how we are using the 35 day window set by courts against another court that completely ignored the law of a 51 day window? It really shows you where the power in the country is.
Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., will receive a federal pension of more than $74,000 a year when he leaves the Senate in January, according to a government watchdog organization that tracks congressional pay.
Torricelli in line for pension
If they get to switch candidates, their decision is valid and they have a better chance to win NJ. If they lose the decision then that increases the RAT turnout across the country allowing them to win a couple of close seats.
We have been played. The only thing that could hurt them would be a backlash, but that won't happen with the liberal press on their side. It was a very safe bet for them to play. And it was a played masterfully.
Oh ya, it could never have worked if the NJSC wasn't on their side and they knew in advance that they'd rule very quickly in their favor. This is why they avoided the district courts and went right to the NJSC.
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.