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

[Timesink]

DNC lawyer is getting HAMMERED ...

Don't read too much into that. Supreme Court justices routinely play devil's advocate and severely challenge the lawyers on both sides. It doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how they eventually rule.

[Stultis]

The motive of the vacancy (how it is caused) should play NO ROLE in your decision!!!!!!!!

[Kaisersrsic]

I think this is going very well.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

DNC lawyeRAT - 51 days does not mean 51 days.

[NeoCaveman]

I'm getting deja vu back to the Florida Supremes and their probing questions asking for a roadmap in how to accede to the dems' wishes.

Why am I not suprised by this.

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe one of the justices can ask the most relevant question of the day:

"If you're going to change your candidate at this late date, THEN WHAT IS THE F#CKING POINT OF HAVING A PRIMARY IN THE FIRST PLACE?"

Thank you -- Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Petronski]

I think this is going very well.

It could be worse.

[TonyInOhio]

'Rat Justice helpfully points out other states allow candidates to be replaced up to day before election. :-(

[tomkat]

I think this is going very well.

i wouldn't bet the farm on that quite yet ...

[Howlin]

What a travesty!

[1Old Pro]

The woman judge just said "Some states let them replace right up to the day before the election, can't we do that? pretty please."

[hobbes1]

Adversaries Federal Argument. Off to the Federal Courts.

[Cicero]

Thanks for the reports.

Questions don't always mean anything in a judicial hearing. The judges may just wish to bring out or clarify points of law or equity before making their decision, so no one can say they didn't consider all these issues.

Yesterday someone said here that most of these judges were appointed by Republican governors. In New Jersey that may not mean much, but perhaps it's a hopeful portent that they won't be completely corrupt and out to lunch, like the SCOFLAws or the 9th circuit judges in California.

[Phantom Lord]

HOW CAN THE MAJOR NETWORKS NOT CARRY THIS LIVE? HHHMMMMPHH!

They do not, and you do not, want to encounter the wrath of the Soap Opera junkies when their show is pre-empted.

[TonyInOhio]

Now discussing Federal statutes. 'Rat laywer doesn't think they are relevant.

[Mo1]

BULL ... what happen to every vote counts

The VOTERS of New Jersy picked Torricelli

That Fat Cats in the back room decided to OVER RULE the voters

/rant>

[hobbes1]

Dur Process arguments coming.

[freedomcrusader]

Justice asking about Bush v. Gore...perhaps worried about the stinging rebuke the SCOFLAw got, and wanting to avoid similar treatment?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

LawyeRAT not comparing Bush v Gore and federal law ...

[Petronski]

Adversaries Federal Argument. Off to the Federal Courts.

From your keys to God's ears!