Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Torricelli Ballot Battle OK'd (State Supreme Court Accepts)
11 Alive ^ | 10/1/02

Posted on 10/01/2002 4:24:14 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

The state Supreme Court decided Tuesday to hear arguments over whether Democrats can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the November ballot, a day after the senator abruptly dropped out of the race.

The court issued an order saying it would hear the case directly instead of waiting for a lower court to act. The high court hearing is scheduled for Wednesday morning. As a result, a hearing set for Tuesday afternoon in Middlesex County Superior Court was canceled.

The Democrats, who hold a one-seat majority in the Senate, had asked the high court to hear the case directly because of the urgency involved.

Torricelli's end to his scandal-tainted re-election campaign forced Democrats to scramble for a candidate. Democratic officials said Monday they had hoped to announce a new candidate within 48 hours.

A top choice, Rep. Robert Menendez, took himself out of the running Tuesday morning. Menendez, the fourth-ranking Democrat in House leadership, said he wants to remain in the House and continue to help Democrats fight for a majority.

Party officials also were considering such possibilities as former Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Bill Bradley and current House members Frank Pallone and Rob Andrews, according to sources in Washington and New Jersey.

Pallone said Tuesday he would consider replacing Torricelli, but added that he had not been asked. Lautenberg said he would "seriously consider serving again if asked." An associate said it was unlikely Bradley would accept. Calls to other potential candidates were not immediately returned.

Angelo Genova, a lawyer for state Democrats, said party officials would meet Wednesday night to decide on a replacement. Genova also said a judge has signed a temporary restraining order barring clerks from making or mailing any ballots until the case is decided.

Torricelli dropped out after his campaign was severely damaged by allegations he improperly accepted expensive gifts from a campaign contributor. The senator was admonished over the summer by the Senate ethics committee.

Under New Jersey law, a party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 51 days before the election. But only 35 days remained as of Tuesday.

Republicans vowed to block any attempt to replace Torricelli this close to the election.

"In 36 days, decency, fairness and the rule of the law will trump this desperate attempt to retain power," said Douglas Forrester, Torricelli's GOP opponent. "The people of New Jersey have had enough of playing politics with the fundamental tenets of democracy."

Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey said that placing a new candidate on the ballot would be a fair way to resolve the issue and would "give New Jersey voters a chance to speak."

The Democrats are defending their one-seat advantage in the Senate in midterm elections.

"I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority of the United States Senate. I will not let it happen. There is just too much at issue," Torricelli, 51, said in abandoning his re-election bid Monday.

Torricelli was elected in 1996 to replace Bradley, the former basketball star who later ran for the 2000 Democratic presidential nomination and lost to Al Gore. Torricelli and Lautenberg, who retired in 2000, served together in the Senate but often were at loggerheads.

Torricelli was always a powerhouse fund-raiser: He helped raise more than $100 million for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as its chairman in the last election cycle. He was awarded a seat on the powerful Senate Finance Committee, and helped defend President Clinton against impeachment.

But Torricelli's career began to unravel as the public learned more about his relationship with businessman David Chang, who told investigators he gave the senator Italian suits and an $8,100 Rolex watch, among other gifts, in return for Torricelli's intervention in business deals in North and South Korea.

Seven people pleaded guilty to making illegal donations to Torricelli's campaign in 1996.

Torricelli denied any illegality or violations of Senate rules but was admonished anyway. Federal prosecutors investigated but decided against filing charges against him.

The incumbent launched an effort to apologize to the state's voters, but last week a memo in the Chang case was released publicly. In it, prosecutors said Chang's efforts had "greatly advanced" the investigation into the senator's actions, despite Chang's "credibility problems."

Forrester, a wealthy businessman, has harped on ethics throughout the campaign and it worked: A poll released over the weekend showed him with a 13-point lead over Torricelli. The same poll showed the incumbent with a 14-point lead in June.

"I pride myself on a strong voice. My colleagues in the Senate would tell you that it is often heard above all others but it doesn't matter if you can't be heard at all in a campaign," Torricelli said. "I'm in a debate with a faceless foe that I cannot find, minds I cannot change."

Tuesday morning, Forrester said Torricelli's move "means we can talk about the issues." In an interview on WABC-TV in New York, Forrester said, "Whenever I tried to bring up another issue like the environment, it somehow always got back to being about" Torricelli.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: statesupremecourt; torricelliballot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last
To: A Citizen Reporter
Well, whoever it is, I'm sure it will be ahead in the polls within minutes........LOL.
21 posted on 10/01/2002 4:50:26 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Great point McGee.
22 posted on 10/01/2002 4:52:34 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Get over here now and look at Southtacks posts!!!!!!!!!
23 posted on 10/01/2002 4:54:43 PM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"And the Republican are doing it again -- in 2000 they went to court to stop the vote counting, but this time they want to stop the voting for a candidate of our choice BEFORE the election!"

You have got to be freakin' kidding me!! Low though my expectations are for Bill Press, I didn't think anyone, save for a consultant, pollster, politician, or anyone else who isn't currently paid by the RAT party would utter anything so chin-droolingly silly!

24 posted on 10/01/2002 4:59:20 PM PDT by winin2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Southack
It would seem to me that these two should recuse themselves from this decision.

These may be worthy of a breaking news thread of their own....this IS BREAKING.
25 posted on 10/01/2002 4:59:38 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Don Munn
I don't know if it's been posted yet, but the Dems got an injunction to prevent other counties from mailing out anymore absentee ballots. One county even has some completed ballots back.
26 posted on 10/01/2002 5:00:10 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: winin2000
You'll have to trust me......he said that almost word for word on their show today. And with a straight face. Very sincere.
27 posted on 10/01/2002 5:00:21 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
You are kidding!
28 posted on 10/01/2002 5:00:40 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Southack
MAN, I love FR! Thanks, Southack!
29 posted on 10/01/2002 5:01:40 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
* but this time they want to stop the voting for a candidate of our choice BEFORE the election!"

In other words: "We Demoncrats hate it when a law gets in our way!"

30 posted on 10/01/2002 5:01:42 PM PDT by jwh_Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Look for these degenerate kangaroos to throw sheets to the wind and come out with an opinion that makes the GOP look like they are the ones who are breaking the law by refusing to let the latest democrat election theft attempt go forward unopposed.

The Jersey Supreme court is another democrat rubber stamp outfit.

The real damage they and their kind do is to the rule of law in the USA.

Apparently the law is meaningless to the Democrats, and they can continue to run roughshod over it wherever they hold a majority.

Forrester will kick the ass of any rat SOB the DNC and the rats can dig up from mothballs, even that idiot Lautenberg.

31 posted on 10/01/2002 5:04:14 PM PDT by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"I'm in a debate with a faceless foe that I cannot find, minds I cannot change."

Try www.freerepublic.com, Torch!
32 posted on 10/01/2002 5:06:48 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"It seems to be that when the polls showed Torricelli 13 to 20 points behind that the citizens of New Jersey WERE speaking."

Excellent - way too much logic for the dim/libs though.
33 posted on 10/01/2002 5:07:19 PM PDT by Let's Roll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Isn't that the OBJECT?
Like Clintong their leader they, "Loathe the military..."

What do we do with traitors today? Elect them?
34 posted on 10/01/2002 5:07:30 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Great research, Southack. Thanks. This is unbelievable.
35 posted on 10/01/2002 5:08:10 PM PDT by Balata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: generalissimoduane
Look at freeper Southtacks posts ...it seems we have a conflict of interest now with the NJ Supreme Court...

Duane this is HUGE!!!!!!

36 posted on 10/01/2002 5:09:00 PM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: All
Dems have gotten an injuction to prevent mailing of anymore ballots.....
37 posted on 10/01/2002 5:10:02 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Well, looky here....great find....like I said on another thread, the torch and the rats would never have pulled this stunt without knowing how the court would rule......This makes me sick!
38 posted on 10/01/2002 5:10:19 PM PDT by mystery-ak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
There is no legal basis to do what the Democrats are trying to do. None. If the NJ Supreme Court allows them to do so, it is a kangeroo court made up of DemonCrap political hacks who do not recognize the rule of law, in violation of their oaths.
39 posted on 10/01/2002 5:10:32 PM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog
It would seem to me that a judge who is obviously a supporter of the parties involved should recuse himself.

Otherwise he would be opening himself up to charges of judicial misconduct. I would hope this information can be forwarded to the appropriate people.

40 posted on 10/01/2002 5:10:35 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson