Replies

The Judge said no such thing. NO ONE, EVER, can postpone a Senate election, because the day for holding them is specified in the Constitution. The New Jersey law that folks are repeatedly quoting, only legitimately applies when the Senator who dies has more than two years left on his/her term at that point.
It is easy to read the NJ statute as allowing the Governor to act that way ANYTIME a Senator dies, resigns, whatever. But even a NJ Court recognizes that NJ law cannot be read to violate a specific provision of the US Constitution. Remember the Chief Judge of the Florida Supreme Court who warned his colleagues that the US Supreme Court would not let their decision stand?
From what I know of the NJ Court, they have less fire-breathing liberals than the Florida Court. Also, they will be MORE mindful of the embarrassment of being b*tch-slapped by the US SC if they attempt to violate the US Constitution.
The only real legal question here is whether the NJ SC will attempt to violate NJ law and allow the Dems to substitute a new candidate AFTER the deadline to do so has passed. The reasoning they applied, in their only known exception, involved a candidate who died before his primary, but won anyway. It does NOT apply to the Torricelli situation, since he is only politically dead.
Be sure to check the third link below. I wrote about this situation BEFORE it happened.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

Click for "Death as a Political Strategy"

The Judge said no such thing He certainly did prior to the press conference. He detailed two scenarios that could happen which made my stomach turn. In any event I've posted the statute in my post 1773 which covers a vacancy (doesn't apply here unless the Torch resigns). Can you help interpret it so I can rest easier.

Be sure to check the third link below. I wrote about this situation BEFORE it happened. Will do so now, thanks.

The only real legal question here is whether the NJ SC will attempt to violate NJ law and allow the Dems to substitute a new candidate AFTER the deadline to do so has passed. The reasoning they applied, in their only known exception, involved a candidate who died before his primary, but won anyway. It does NOT apply to the Torricelli situation, since he is only politically dead.

Thanks, and thanks for the laugh: "only POLITICALLY dead!" ROFL!

Hellooooo? Does anyone see the parallel to Torricelli? Assuming that Torricelli has released his tax returns, any cub reporter in New Jersey can find out whether Torricelli declared that $22,000 that he spent from "unknown" sources. If not, then Torricelli, just like Capone, is guilty of tax evasion. And that charge has squat to do with whether Chang is "credible." Chang would not even have to be a witness in that trial.

Right on! Last Saturday, Linda Chavez appearing on The Beltway Boys, mentioned that Torricelli may have bigger fish to fry with the IRS.