NJ Supreme Court Hearing Live Thread

New Jersey Public TV ^ | 10/02/02 | TonyInOhio

[TonyInOhio]

New Jersey Public TV is carrying this hearing live. Click on Watch Live Online, and post what you hear, here.

Tony

[laconic]

There has to be some constitutional question (equal protection, due process) for the US Supreme Court to take this case. I assume the strongest point in the GOP favor is the argument about the absentee ballots. If the NJ Supreme Court addresses this issue adequately, teh US Supreme Court will probably let their decision stand. This has been a runaway state court system for years and most of the leading liberals have been appointed by republican governors. For instance, now deceased Chief Judge Richard Hughes was a liberal democrat who was succeeded as governor by a republican congressman, William Cahill. One of Cahill's FIRST official acts was to appoint Hughes as CHief Justice.

[baltoga]

Actually if Forrester makes the case that he's the 'elected' candidate versus the 'selected' candidate he'll run roughshod all over the Rats.

[agrace]

The Greens are not on our side, they're on their own side.

Exactly, which is why I found it so humorous that in this case, he actually supports us by default. And as a resident of NJ, I've seen Glick's mailers - they are completely outrageous and the LAST party he'd ever identify with is the Republican party. In fact it seemed to me that he could have added "I can't believe I'm saying this but" at any point in his remarks. :)

But it's all about equality, as you so pointed out, and both the Libertarians and Greens made excellent points.

Any speculation out there as to when a decision might be forthcoming?

[rstevens]

I'd rather see them demand that Torricelli pay for it, personally and not be allowed to use his campaign chest, since he is no longer a candidate. Use of campaign money is illegal for uses not in conjunction with campaigning.

I believe this would force him to reconsider. And actually, it is his actions and decisions in the first place. Or at least that is what he said.

[Always Right]

The the NJ Judges declare that there must be another name entered on the DEMOCRATIC PARTY line so as not to disenfranchise the DEMOCRATS, why then Mr. Jeffords of Vermont must surely be up for re-election this November, as he did dis-enfranchise the REPUBLICAN PARTY.

There are hundreds of elections all over that are missing a canadate from one of the majors parties. Shoot, we didn't have a GOP canidate for mayor last election. There is no legal mandate which states there must be a Democrat on the ballot for a US Senate seat.

[Alas Babylon!]

There is no legal mandate which states there must be a Democrat on the ballot for a US Senate seat.

True, but sadly, after the SCONJ makes its decision, there will be.

[Smedley]

Any speculation out there as to when a decision might be forthcoming?

If the SCONJ was serious about hearing from local election boards, three days.

If this trial was just a formality to rewrite the statutes -- tonight or tomorrow morning.

[Always Right]

Yes that selected not elected argument has worked so well for the Dems as Bush's 70% approval ratings indicate. There is no reason the GOP should back down from this legal fight.

[goldstategop]

Why couldn't the Democrats just have Lautenberg be a write-in candidate? No need to reprint the ballots and it'd be perfectly legal.

[goldstategop]

My bet is we'll hear from them tonight or tomorrow morning. After all Lautenberg needs to get on campaigning not be tied up in court wondering if he'll ever make it on the ballot.

[Dianna]

Right, I don't think the pubbies should go any further than this. They should fight this thing in the court of public opinion and make it a national issue in every other close race.

I don't know that going to SCOTUS would be a bad decision. What effect will it have? Well amoung conservatives like us, we can be relieved that the party is standing up for itself, and it would help spur us to vote. The Dems would wet their pants, but they aren't going to vote for us anyway. The Dems are so crazy about retaining the Senate that I think they'll have a high turnout.

So that leaves the mushy middle. They have come to like and support Bush in spite of the media and the hammering of illegitimate. Maybe we can trust them?

[Always Right]

If the SCONJ was serious about hearing from local election boards, three days. If this trial was just a formality to rewrite the statutes -- tonight or tomorrow morning.

I am almost surprise they did not already have the ruling written.

[concerned about politics]

Why couldn't the Democrats just have Lautenberg be a write-in candidate? No need to reprint the ballots and it'd be perfectly legal.

Because it could split the vote. Some really want Toricelli.
The only way to pull this off is for the court to elect a Democrat for NJ via liberal legislation, or give Torecelli a death sentance before Nov. 5th.

[carmody]

I agree with you. Furthermore, the Republican party should get together with ALL of the other parties and make ONE commercial together.

The theme should be something like this: "The Democratic candidate pulled out of this race because he was going to lose. And in flagrant violation of the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law, the Democrats tried to replace their candidate with one chosen by the party leaders, not the people. If you believe in a government by the people and for the people, send a message to Bob Toricelli and the Democratic leadership this November. Make your choice from one of OUR candidates. Thank you!"

Forget the Supreme Court. All the other candidates should take it to the people.

[MamaLucci]

I heard Judge Napolitano say just that yesterday. Did you happen to hear him
express WHY he thinks SCOTUS will even take the case?

[vollmond]

I don't think Forrester or the Republicans will appeal if the decision goes against them. Let the Greens and Libertarians appeal. He can beat Lautenberg. In a debate he'll come off no better than Admiral Stockdale (a great American, but absolutely lost in the VP debate in 92). Be thankful Bill Bradley or some of the better Dem Reps stayed away from this debacle.

[VRWC_minion]

I am almost surprise they did not already have the ruling written.

Its was at the printers on Sunday. They need to give the printers enough lead time to reprint the ballots.

[laconic]

Yes, significant numbers of oldline Democrats vote the straight party line ticket. If Torricelli's name is still on the ballot, he would still get about 15 percent of the vote; with Forrester guaranteed about 45 percent, this means Lautenburg would lose with 40 percent, even if this percentage of teh people voting could figure out HOW to write in his name.

[goldstategop]

They probably had the ruling written before they came in for the hearing. Everyone knows its a "show trial," but they still need to look disinterested even as its common knowledge they've already ruled for the Democrats. Its the appearance of the thing for the U.S Supremes just in case they look askance at the proceedings in Washington.

[Coop]

[sigh]