DJ US Supreme Court Rejects GOP New Jersey Ballot Appeal.

DJ

[segis]

Just saw this on the DJ Wire.

[mass55th]

"Think of this as a victory for State's Rights."

Sorry, I can't look at it in those terms. I see it as a corrupt political party corrupting state elections and state election laws.

[John Jorsett]

Where do you turn when the SCOTUS ignores the law?

There's still a district court battle regarding the disenfranchisement of the military, so the war is not yet over.

[AmishDude]

Those two judges who donated to Torricelli's campaign should be disbarred and impeached.

[Steven W.]

just because the SCOTUS decided not to step in here does not establish a precedent that they would not do so in some other case in the future.

[bioprof]

WE ALL NEED TO GET OFF OUR COLLECTIVE REARS AND VOICE OUR OPINION IN THE VOTING BOOTH.

I swear, if this doesn't get the lazy bums that can't be bothered to vote out of the house on Nov. 5, then I don't know what will.

Lautenberg's record is actually EASIER to run against than Torch's record ( disregarding the ethics stuff ). So, let the issues take over....and DO IT EFFECTIVELY! None of this soft pedal stuff....the man doesn't care about the flag , doesn't care about the military, and thinks terrorists that kill US citizens should not be put to death. If the RNC and Forrester's campaign can't capitilize on that and make it even MORE effective than attacking Torch's ethics, then ......well......I think I'm going to go pour water over my head for a bit.............

[unixfox]

Well, now we have nobody in this country to insist on the Rule Of Law,... what do we do!!??

REVOLT !!!

[jz638]

This was a no win situation for conservatism.

If the Supreme Court overturned the NJ supreme court, Democrats would have more fodder to spin to the public that the Supreme Court is influencing elections. If the Supreme Court didn't take the case (as it has), the New Jersey scumbag courts effectively set a precident for all future NJ elections.

[Principled]

Who was Torch's primary opponent? Wouldn't that be the one to replace him?

Next election cycle, we'll have 7 repubs running for the same office as "the" repub candidate. Whoever is running best as election day approaches will be the candidate. What a mess this will be.

[Truth29]

It heans that elections will become just a sham. Those who control the courts control the country. We have let far too many liberal judges on the courts over the years and now we will reap the price. I don't have the answer, but we need to do something entirely different. To continue to support the election process in the US as it now operates is a fools game. It will only lead to our slow demise.

[My2Cents]

Where do you turn when the SCOTUS ignores the law?

Tom Paine's COMMON SENSE?

[Let's Roll]

Exactly. I can understand why SCOTUS refused to get involved - maybe the GOP didn't frame their appeal correctly or something but that's a separate issue - but where will appointed judges making rules instead of our elected representatives, who account to the people, stop?

I hope that state legislatures across the country as well as in NJ are pissed about this. And I hope the NJ voters make them pay in November. It's backlash time.

[Spiff]

The World Court?

#$@& NO! Not the $%#&ing World Court. Bite your tongue. They have not authority or legitimacy here at all. Haven't you heard of sovereignty? Ack! Puh-lease....

[mass55th]

"just because the SCOTUS decided not to step in here does not establish a precedent that they would not do so in some other case in the future."

I don't understand how they can legally ignore this case and then step into an exact same case in the future. The only way I could see that happening is if there was a change of bodies on the court.

[steveegg]

Next election cycle, we'll have 7 repubs running for the same office as "the" repub candidate. Whoever is running best as election day approaches will be the candidate. What a mess this will be.

The Pubbies aren't bright enough to try this now that it's passed Constitutional muster. Or, if they do, they'll choose the WEAKEST candidate.

[dirtboy]

Where do you turn when the SCOTUS ignores the law?

Happens quite often, actually, from the erosion of 4th Amendment rights to ignoring of 2nd A issues and the nearly complete oblivousness to the 10th Amendment. However, the trick for the GOP is to make a ruckus not just when their ox gets gored, but when someone else's does as well. Supreme Courts are now the domain of modern-day Mad Hatters, where words (and laws) mean what the jurists want them to mean.

[WBeckham]

What's the DJ Wire?

[Truth29]

It won't really come back to bite the dems. The majority of judges are liberals. The decisions will favor their own and not the GOP. The reasons may be artefully worded, but the courts will determine the greater good is to favor the democrats and find a reason to deny the GOP legal challenges.

[eureka!]

Re#19 I don't know what the hell they're going to do. I'm as bummed as you. Obviously, they couldn't agree on the emergency--or it may have been a "standing" problem. Time will tell. Meanwhile, we need to get Forrester elected...

[Spiff]

Who was Torch's primary opponent? Wouldn't that be the one to replace him?

The Democrats failed to run anyone against Torch. And now, they think that poor planning on their part constitutes an emergency situation requiring "relief" from the NJSC in the form of allowing an illegitimate candidate onto the ballot after the deadline mandated by the law.

[deport]

High Court Won't Take N.J. Sen. Case

Mon Oct 7, 2:04 PM ET

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused Monday to be drawn into an election fight that resurrected memories of the court's contentious intervention in the presidential election two years ago.

Democrats may now go ahead with plans to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli (news, bio, voting record) with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg on the Nov. 5 ballot in their effort to retain their one-seat hold on the Senate.

New Jersey Republicans had called the switch a political ploy intended to dump a candidate who seemed sure to lose in favor of a potential winner. They asked the Supreme Court to stop the Democrats, arguing that the candidate swap came too close to Election Day.

The high court did not explain its reasons for rejecting the GOP appeal.

Word from the high court came on the first day of the new Supreme Court term, and a week after Torricelli bowed out of his re-election race.

Torricelli said he would step aside after polls showed him losing ground to Republican challenger Douglas Forrester who had made Torricelli's ethics problems the focus of his campaign.

The Democrats quickly chose Lautenberg as a replacement, and the Republicans went to court.

New Jersey's highest court unanimously approved the candidate switch, a decision that Forrester's lawyers had said "opens the doors of American elections to considerable mischief."

The Republicans appealed to the high court last Thursday, arguing that the candidate swap was both illegal and unconstitutional. State law prevents such an 11th hour switch, and it could strip voting rights from absentee and overseas voters, the GOP argued.

About 1,700 absentee and overseas military ballots have already been mailed with Torricelli's name on them.

If the state ruling stood, "political parties will be encouraged to withdraw losing candidates on the eve of election, replacing them with candidates who have not gone through the rigors of the nomination process in hopes of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat," Republicans argued to the justices in a court filing last Thursday.

There was plenty of time to reprint ballots, Democrats assured the Supreme Court in paperwork filed Friday.

"It may be that Forrester believes he will be politically hurt by the New Jersey Supreme Court's judgment and is simply unwilling to say so," Democrats wrote.

As in the 2000 election fight, Republicans contested a ruling from a majority-Democrat state court.

The Supreme Court surprised both sides by jumping into the fight two years ago, ending ballot recounts in Florida by a bitter 5-4 vote. Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) had sought the recounts in hopes of erasing George W. Bush's tiny lead.

New Jersey Republicans are also pursuing a separate challenge in federal court in Trenton on behalf of two people the party contends could lose their votes.

The Supreme Court case is 02-A-289.

___

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20021007/ap_on_el_se/new_jersey_senate