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

[txjeep]

He's gonna say the taxpayers should pay, I can feel it.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

The Dem. lawyer is doing an awful lot of suggesting to the court. Anyone want to guess how long he's been working on this argument?

[rintense]

No, it will be the taxpayer taking another one up the arse for a stupid Dem dirty trick.

[twigs]

Excellent points, all. This entire things smells to high heaven.

[blackdog]

Don't be misled. Justices frequently pound the side they are deciding with for good sportsmanship purposes.

[1Old Pro]

Talking about "catastrophic" events. I'm waiting to hear the RAT say sure "Losing the senate would be catastrophic."

[Alberta's Child]

The VOTERS of New Jersy picked Torricelli

That is another very relevant point here. If the Democrats want to change their candidate for no reason whatsoever, then they should be forced to conduct another primary (at their own expense) under the terms of the state's primary laws (i.e., with whatever ballot deadlines are in place). They'll never be able to do that and declare an official winner in time for November 5th.

Or, they should be forced to put up the no-name candidate who finished second in New Jersey's primary.

[TonyInOhio]

Justice admits prior case law regarding replacements involved "catastrophic" events - death, malfeasence of local elections officials. 'Rat lawyer says any reason OK, motive is legally irrelevant.

[sanchmo]

People still have a choice between candidates from the two major parties. They can vote Republican for Forrester or they can vote Democratic for Torricelli. It just so happens that Torricelli is losing, but that should not be against the law. There is absolutely nothing keeping Torricelli from fulfilling his committment to the Democratic Party and the people of New Jersey except for the fact that he does not want to. Well, that's just to bad for Robert Torricelli. He does not have that choice.

A couple of minor (& technical) corrections:

New Jersey voters have many, many more choices than just Torricelli or Forrester. They can vote for Torricelli or Forrester on the ballot, or for any of the other candidates (Green, Libertarian, etc) on the ballot, or they can write-in any other living New Jersey resident including Lautenberg, Menedez or even Bruce Springsteen. Lautenberg can even try a write-in campaign - there's nothing to prevent him from trying or winning. This case is not about who NJ voters can vote for. It's about whose name appears on the ballot. And the deadline for the final look of ballots has passed.
Tough #$!+ DemonRats.

Torricelli - just like anyone else who receives votes, including other Dems - does have a choice. If he wins the election he can accept, refuse, or resign at a later date. And any other candidate has the same options. In addition, someone does not have to be a declared candidate to receive votes, nor does he/she have to have his/her name on the ballot to win the election.

However, having the name pre-printed on the ballot is a substantial advantage, and therefore enforcing deadlines for these ballots is important.

NJ voters would not be "losing a Democratic candidate." If anyhing, it looks like they've just gained another handful!!

[hchutch]

Yep, the Dems are doing a VERY brazen bait-and-switch. If a business did this, it would be shut down, and th eowners would be very lucky to avoid an 8-foot by 10-foot prison cell with a cellmate who says, "My name is Spike, honey."

[Oldeconomybuyer]

"Motive to change candidate is legally irrelevant" ... LawyeRAT

[MP5]

I hear ya. I was watching and almost felt emberassed for him. He seemed lost, like they just rousted him out of bed and said "you're on!"

[SternTrek]

who pays should not be part of this issue anyway. the precedent that may be set is intolerable. forcing the court to decide who's reason is legit for pulling out.

[Howlin]

"But, Your Honor, he's losing!"

[TonyInOhio]

'Rat lawyer says equal protection not an issue - all voters get a vote (absentees get to vote twice!!)

[LisaFab]

LOL! "The motive for withdrawal is irrelevant." That, my friends is the linchpin for the dems. That and "IT"S NOT FAIR...."

[Huck]

Couldn't have said it better.

[roses of sharon]

I am POSITIVE he or some Dems has ALREADY spoken to someone on the court or their clerks.

There is no way they would have made this decision without already knowing the outcome.

The fix is in.

[carton253]

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."

As my mother said to me countless times when I was younger... "I don't care what other states do, I said no replacements 51 days before the election. If other states jumped off a building, would you. Now go to your room and think about what you've done."

[jonathanmo]

A Judge Should Ask:
What would stop the Green Party or ALL the 3rd parties pulling there candidates 1 at a time, over and over, every day from 60 days on in to Nov 5, forcing reprints of the ballots each time JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK THEY CAN WIN?