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

[NeoCaveman]

--"I am a NJ voter and I voted for Torricelli in the primary (I have my reasons). I would not have voted for Lautenburg. What about my rights?"

--"You've been disenfranchised, it's time to file a lawsuit, right now."

This sounds serious - something that should be persued, not as a joke, but as a realistic "voters rights" concern!

I agree it's serious. Gridlock should file suit immediately.

[Teacher317]

How many of the justices have been indicating sympathy to the Rats?

Well, two of them sent Torricelli campaign contributions... and failed to recuse themselves... does that count as sympathy?

[McLynnan]

Yikes! Justice wants to know why not offer relief, funds, etc.!!!

[ladyinred]

Because the american media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC. Same (and only) reason Clinton stayed in office.

Well said!! Bravo!

[mwl1]

Can anyone share how our lawyer is doing?

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Appellate judges ALWAYS interrupt. It doesn't necessarily indicate ANYTHING.

[GnL]

The justices are harping on the importance of allowing the voters a meaningful choice. Well, the Demoncrats TOOK THAT CHOICE AWAY WHEN TORRICELLI WITHDREW! They brought it upon themselves and the voters. Why isn't the Republican lawyer bringing this up? I'm afraid the outcome of this doesn't look good.

[1Old Pro]

Justices upset with GOP guy because they have already ruled and are now just trying to make it doable.

GOP guy says they are jumping the gun and they should FOLLOW THE LAW.

[twyn1]

The democrats have caused this problem...the remedy CANNOT be one that benefits them.

Amen !! this needs repeating !!

[Howlin]

Not well.

[Spiff]

Thanks, but it doesn't get through the derned firewall. Keep the updates coming for the (sigh) cubicle drones.

Ha! I'm the firewall administrator for my office network - I'm watching the stream right now. {I'm sorry sir, I don't know why the network is running so slowly this morning - I'll look into it and try to have it resolved by this afternoon.}

[AFPhys]

The New Jersey Supreme Court is taking phone calls nationally in order to "poll" on this issue. I called from the car and had a polite discussion with person who answered. Their Number is 609-292-4837. They probably won't make a decision today so calls are important. PLEASE CALL.

PING !!!! Will Call

[an amused spectator]

Because outside a relatively small group of partisans nobody really gives a damn.

"A relatively small group of partisans" in the media gave us Watergate, and nobody really gave a damn. We were only TOLD that "we gave a damn", and we're reminded every few years that "we gave a damn", by the very same "relatively small group of partisans".

[LisaFab]

How many of the justices have been indicating sympathy to the Rats?

All of them by my count. This is a travesty. The actual statute is not being discussed, only the planning of the "new" balloting procedure!

[Freeper 007]

We are sunk.

The justices are only focusing on whether or not it is administatively possible.

They are blowing off all other arguements. As the Republican lawyer tries to focus on other arguements, the justices just ignore him and come back to whether or not it is possible.

Get ready for an appeal to the USSC. Then get ready for Lautenberg on the ballot.


That being said, I kind of think Lautenberg will lose to Forrestor.

[rintense]

But the court is missing this! They keep pulling the 'voter' rights crap. There is no doubt in my mind that the decision has already been made, thanks in part to behind-the-scenes politics from Clinton, McAwfull, and the DNC. This is a disgrace to the American election process and the Constitution.

[goldstategop]

Uh huh. And if the Rats are entitled to replace their candidate it has to be extended to the Republican side as well. What's sauce for the good is sauce for the gander too. The Democrats should be careful of pushing this; they might get more than they bargained for and its might end up backfiring in their faces.

[rockinonritalin]

Justice just stated that their role is to provide a remedy. Has to be a Dem since he does not see his role as interpreting the law.

Would the court be trying this hard to find a remedy if the candidate in question was a member of the "Right to Life" party or the "Green" party? I think the court is demonstrating their partisianship by bending over backwards to give the voters a good Democrat choice on the ballot.

[jackbill]

Can anyone share how our lawyer is doing?

Not very well.