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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last
To: All
Somebody help me...is Albin on the court or not.....he is not listed on the Supreme Court website, yet is called one at politicsnj.com......
61 posted on 10/01/2002 5:27:03 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Albin must be on the court......they just have not updated the webpage. He is a new justice, according to politicsnj.
62 posted on 10/01/2002 5:28:17 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
There was a new appointee to the NJSC just 3 weeks ago, could be Albin...
63 posted on 10/01/2002 5:28:59 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
Great post. The truth doesn't matter.

Perception is reality in politics.

And the Demorats take it to the extreme.

64 posted on 10/01/2002 5:29:58 PM PDT by Balata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

Searching for one honest NJ Democrat...


65 posted on 10/01/2002 5:30:35 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
It needs to be made public knowlege ASAP that these two judges have a conflict of interest in regards to presiding over this major decision. I have just emailed Drudge about it. I hope he gets the word and publishes it on his site. I suggest you do the same. There is strength in numbers.

-Trackman
66 posted on 10/01/2002 5:30:51 PM PDT by trackman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Torricelli's end to his scandal-tainted re-election campaign forced Democrats to scramble for a candidate.

A classic case of mistaking cause for effect: Democrats lust for power forces Torricelli to end his scandal-tainted re-election campaign after polls reveal his certain defeat, prompting a scramble for a new candidate at the last minute.

67 posted on 10/01/2002 5:31:53 PM PDT by Publius Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Found a short article about Albin being sworn in. Sure enough, he is a justice.
68 posted on 10/01/2002 5:32:11 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
After thinking about it for a while, I've come to the conclusion that the NJ Supremes will most likely not allow the Torch's name to be replaced with someone else. It's called "precedence". Unless they can come up with some peculiarity about this specific election, if they allow the DemocRATs to prevail, every time in the future, when a candidate is losing, he can quit and get replaced by someone else. That's a nightmare and I doubt that the NJ Supremes would want that.
69 posted on 10/01/2002 5:33:36 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
About Albin:

N.J. court picks should have association's review.

In his first nomination to the New Jersey Supreme Court, Gov. McGreevey on the surface seems to be doing the same thing for which he criticized former Gov. Whitman: making "patronage" appointments of political allies.

His nominee, lawyer Barry T. Albin, is a long-time friend and political contributor from a well-known firm in Woodbridge, where Mr. McGreevey was mayor.

The Albin appointment's saving grace is that the governor submitted it to the state bar association for review, something Ms. Whitman refused to do after the controversy over her ill-advised appointment of Peter Verniero to the court.

Ms. Whitman scrapped a practice known as the "Hughes Compact," after Gov. Richard Hughes, who set it up in 1969. Under the compact, a governor agreed not only to submit nominees to the bar for review, but to withdraw the nomination of anyone the bar found "not qualified."

That process is a check against unqualified patronage appointments making it to the state's highest court.

Ms. Whitman short-circuited the process out of pique when the bar's finding that Mr. Verniero was "not qualified" became public. Those ratings are supposed to stay confidential.

Mr. Verniero, former state attorney general and counsel to the governor, barely survived the state Senate confirmation process. He was severely criticized a year later for his role in the state police scandal over racial profiling.

Later Whitman nominees to the high court voluntarily submitted themselves for review by the bar, but Ms. Whitman did not agree to abide by the bar's findings.

Mr. Albin, though benefiting from his close ties to the governor, is well-regarded by peers. He was a deputy attorney general and assistant prosecutor before joining the firm of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, the firm of the late Chief Justice Robert Wilentz.

Besides submitting nominees for bar review, Gov. McGreevey should pay attention to another tradition that has helped sustain the high quality and reputation of the New Jersey Supreme Court: maintaining political balance on the court. This normally means replacing a justice with someone of the same party or philosophy.

The court has had three Democrats, three Republicans and an independent who was a Whitman nominee.

Mr. Albin, a Democrat, would replace an outgoing Republican justice, putting more Democrats than Republicans on the high court. Next year, a Democratic justice will retire; the governor should consider prospects for that vacancy who don't have clear ties to the Democratic Party.

A system of checks on the quality and balance of the Supreme Court has served New Jersey well. The governor should respect and preserve that tradition.

(From the 7/16/02 Philly Inquirer... donchya just love their unbiased reporting?)

70 posted on 10/01/2002 5:34:00 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"Federal prosecutors investigated but decided against filing charges against him."

Of course not. He's a democRAT. They get special priveleges with prosecutors. No matter who was sicced on X42, they always let him slide.

Drives me nuts!

71 posted on 10/01/2002 5:35:03 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trackman
Get it out there! Let's have FR find another Breaking story!
72 posted on 10/01/2002 5:35:08 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
"Mr. Albin, a Democrat, would replace an outgoing Republican justice, putting more Democrats than Republicans on the high court. Next year, a Democratic justice will retire; the governor should consider prospects for that vacancy who don't have clear ties to the Democratic Party."

Anyone wanna take bets on this happening?

73 posted on 10/01/2002 5:36:50 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: jackbill
Hello, I've been a daily "lurker" since 11/2000 but just recently registered. I have a question and am wondering if anyone can clarify this issue: today Mark Levin (via Sean Hannity) said this issue has to stop with the NJSC, it's a state issue that cannot be decided by SCOTUS. Yet it seems to me that if it's an election for a Federal position, the U.S. Senate, SCOTUS could ultimately have a say in the matter. I'm hoping the NJSC will do the right thing and it wouldn't be necessary, but after 2000 I'm expecting just about anything to happen. Thoughts? Thanks.
74 posted on 10/01/2002 5:44:50 PM PDT by GOPrincess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
You know ... something bothers me about this Torricelli thing.

I can't help but think that Torch is doing this on purpose to embarrass the dems. Why else would x42 call the Torch 3 times to beg him to stay on?? (at least that's what Torch said).

Anybody else think this??
75 posted on 10/01/2002 5:51:23 PM PDT by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The state Supreme Court decided Tuesday to hear arguments

Wow. That's a surprise. They're going to actually hear arguments?

They've already made their ruling and guess who won!

76 posted on 10/01/2002 5:59:03 PM PDT by Humidston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
It seems to me that if New Jersey allows a new ballot to be printed with a new Democratic candidate and that new ballot cannot be sent to the overseas military New Jersey voters because of time constraints, then New Jersey is denying those voters a reasonable opportunity to vote for Senator while giving all of the other voters a reasonable opportunity. That would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because there is no reasonable justification for that unequal treatment. The only reason for the unequal treatment is that the Democrats decided at a late date to replace a candidate who was losing in the polls. What am I missing?

Regards,

Allan J. Favish
http://www.allanfavish.com

77 posted on 10/01/2002 6:10:05 PM PDT by AJFavish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak; PhiKapMom
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!

Look, I think it's likely that the NJ Supremes will rule in favor of the RATS. They are machine politicians who got appointed to the Court. NJ is a machine democrat politics state.

That said, I don't think the judges are so corrupt that they ruled in secret before Torch made his move.

I think this was one of those situations where the move might make things better but will almost certainly not make things worse. If the court rules against them, the Torch is going to lost just the way he was before his move.

Plus, if Torch's move fails, the DEMS will still be able to rally the base with the Bill Press Bull-Clinton.

Don't get so upset about this. NJ was looking like a gift from God. We had no right even being in that race but for DEM stupidity in nominating a known crook. Let's concentrate on the States where we have a good chance to take the Senate.

There's a new website that is a resource for conservatives who want to help take back the Senate:

TakeBackCongress.Org.

If we take 4 of the 6 tight races (not including NJ), we win the Senate. Let's put our resources where we have control rather than getting upset about the NJ situation which, quite frankly, is completely out of our control.

78 posted on 10/01/2002 6:11:00 PM PDT by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Balata
Well, I guess there's one thing you can say about the Torch mess, Baghdad Jim calling Bush a liar, Daschle's outburst, Gore's inanity, and Kennedy and Byrd piling on:

So much for the "new tone" in Washington.

Takes two to tango. A new tone doesn't have much meaning when the other side is trying to bludgeon you to death.

79 posted on 10/01/2002 6:12:38 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Humidston
Not only have absentee ballots been mailed, I heard on Fox that absentee ballots (votes) have been received in some NJ townships.

How can the court change the candidates now?
80 posted on 10/01/2002 6:13:55 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 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